Senate debates

Thursday, 16 February 2017

Bills

Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2017; Second Reading

12:12 pm

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

I rise to speak on the Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. I would indicate to the Senate that the opposition supports this bill. As was stated by the member for McMahon in the other place earlier this week, we will support its passage without hindrance or delay. This bill seeks to remove the entitlements and expenses of retired parliamentarians, namely the Life Gold Pass. The bill removes the pass from all current passholders and future recipients in line with the views of the Australian community.

This reform was announced almost three years ago by the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah. Labor then, and Labor now, supports this reform. This expensive and ongoing entitlement should be removed immediately. It is not enough to talk about restoring faith in the political system; we have a duty to act. Labor understands that duty and will support this bill and its timely passage through the parliament.

12:13 pm

Photo of Ian MacdonaldIan Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

In opposing the retrospective parts of this legislation, I at least remain true to Liberal principles and to the principles of my party in fierce opposition to any retrospective legislation, no matter how popular the cause might be on any particular occasion or in the media cycle at this point in time.

Retrospective legislation is never good law. Indeed, the Legislation Handbook, issued to ministers by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, says this:

Provisions that have a retrospective operation adversely affecting rights or imposing liabilities are to be included only in exceptional circumstances and on explicit policy authority …

Retrospective laws have been described in the Federal Law Review as 'unjust, undemocratic, unreliable and contrary to human rights, individual autonomy, the rule of law and the Constitution'. The legislative principle often articulated is that persons and citizens are entitled to regulate their affairs on the assumption that their current circumstances are settled. That is why I have never consciously supported legislation that was retrospective in a serious way.

The recent changes to superannuation are a case in point. There were two elements of those proposed changes that I was told by constituents and believed myself did retrospectively alter arrangements put in place by those who had saved for their own retirement. When these laws were proposed to be changed retrospectively, I advised the Treasurer—and publicly—that, if these two retrospective elements were not changed, I would be voting against the legislation. Fortuitously, the Treasurer changed the legislation so that, whilst it did prospectively reduce some people's benefits, these new legislated changes were prospective, not retrospective. It is a sad reflection on public life in Australia that, when I opposed proposed retrospective legislation in the superannuation debate, my stand was all but ignored; when I oppose government retrospective legislation on this occasion, I am condemned by the commentariat.

People are also telling me that recent changes to pensions are retrospective. It is my understanding, but I am prepared to be convinced otherwise, that these are prospective—that is, they are taking away benefits in the future, but they do not change arrangements that applied in the past. Retrospective legislation has always been anathema to the Liberal Party, and I am distressed that my party, in this particular instance, has ignored a basic principle of our party. It does not matter that those who are retrospectively damaged belong to a group or genre in the community who are currently so poorly regarded. Retrospectivity is bad no matter who bears the brunt of the retrospectivity. Regrettably, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee in their report on this legislation entirely missed the point. It is not the retrospectivity back to 13 May 2014 that is the problem but rather the retrospectivity back to 1918.

I now turn to the question of why the government and Labor are introducing the Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 now, notwithstanding its obvious retrospectivity. This retrospective legislation is not about saving the budget. It is not about budget savings. According to the government, the saving is a massive $5 million. According to other figures, the saving is $1 million to $2 million. Whilst that is a lot of money, in the context of a government which every year spends upwards of $300 billion, the savings from the retrospective cancellation of this benefit for elderly retired politicians are not going to make one iota of difference to the budget. In fact, the new independent parliamentary remuneration tribunal, which we will be dealing with after this legislation, will itself cost some $12 million to set up, so the saving of $1 million or $2 million by taking from a few dozen or even 100-plus elderly ex-politicians is not going to make one iota of difference to the budget at all. This measure is pure populism.

Mark Latham, when he was the Labor leader and struggling at the polls, thought he could curry favour with the electorate by introducing some legislation to take away part of the remuneration package for parliamentarians. It did Mark Latham no good whatsoever. It did not garner him one vote, and he passed into history. John Howard, when he was struggling at the polls, tried the same thing, and, similarly, this made not one iota of difference to Howard's popularity. It did not gain him one vote, and he subsequently lost both the election and his own seat. Julia Gillard stopped the gold pass in 2012, and look what difference it made to her support in the 2013 election: not one vote was gained for her. More recently, Tony Abbott was struggling at the polls, and he announced further curtailments of remuneration packages for parliamentarians. History shows that that did not do Tony one iota of good. It did not garner him one vote. I say the same to Mr Shorten and to Mr Turnbull: if you think that going along with this populist approach on this issue is going to win you just one vote, history shows that you are sadly mistaken. When we start to run this country by what is popular rather than what is right, I fear for the future of Australia.

I now turn to the trolls of social media, the commentariat and the lazy journalists and subeditors who, knowingly, falsely accused me of self-interest and of opposing this legislation for my own benefit. I want to respond to them—not that any of them will ever print or broadcast any of this. This has nothing to do with me. It will give me no financial benefit or other benefit. This false criticism of me has been very loud, but, when a Labor senator was proven to obtain a very personal benefit by having a Chinese company pay his own personal bills, from the same accusers there was barely a murmur.

My message to the Labor Party and the Greens political party is this: tell your legions of trolls not to waste their time sending me their hate mail. It will never influence me in what I believe to be right—perhaps not popular, but right. I know why the Greens and the Labor Party have unleashed their attack dogs on me, and that is because, after 27 years in this place, I more than most can expose both the Labor Party and the Greens for the frauds and charlatans they are in a political and policy sense. I do this continuously in this chamber, and I know that both the Labor Party and the Greens loathe me for it. They love to seize upon anything they think may hasten my departure from this chamber, because they think that, the moment I go, no-one will be around to remember the fraudulent hypocrisy of both parties over many years. Sadly for the Labor Party and the Greens, I will be around for a while yet.

I was never interested in the gold pass personally. My opposition is on behalf of a small group of elderly retired politicians—Liberal, Labor, Democrats and Greens—who have no voice in this debate. Would I ever access the gold pass? Why is it of no personal benefit to me? Firstly, it applies only to retired politicians, and I have no intention of retiring; I will probably be carried out of here in a pine box. So it is of no interest to me personally. But, if I do eventually retire, can I tell you that, after spending the last 27 years of my life flying seven hours from my home down to Canberra and seven hours back each week that parliament sits just to get to my work, the last thing I want to do when I leave this place is get on an aeroplane. I will not go into the use of the Life Gold Pass by former parliamentarians. Suffice to say that many Australians who earnestly seek visits, lectures and speeches across all parts of Australia from former parliamentarians will now be denied, on abolition of the gold pass, that opportunity. This impacts on those living outside the capital cities more than anyone else.

The Life Gold Pass was an arrangement made with politicians, I am told, as far back as 1918, when the pay and conditions for parliamentarians were nowhere near what they are today. Even when I entered parliament 27 years ago, the pay for politicians was not what it is today. But I have to say that, for those of us on our side of the chamber, the pay was never the reason for entering the parliament. Most of my colleagues on this side of the chamber at least—and perhaps on the other side—would have been far better off financially if they had stayed in the occupations and professions they had prior to coming into parliament. You do not enter parliament for the money. Every single parliamentarian, I am sure—certainly all of those on my side—is here because they believe they can make a difference for Australia. The shock jocks and the lazy journalists and subeditors churn out the populist lines because it is easy to do so, and it always gets an energetic response from a small section of the community—a small section who complain a lot but never offer themselves for election to parliament, because they have never had the energy, the dedication and the commitment to do the hard yards and get elected in the first place, and to then work for something less than $50 an hour for all hours of the day and night, often at least six days a week, often for up to 48 weeks a year, in a job where there is no privacy, no down time.

By comparison to their peers in the public service, in the professions, in business, in the trades, in agriculture—and I suspect even in the union movement—they are not as well paid. Not many tradesmen would work for under $80 per hour. The charge-out rate for a solicitor in a small country town that I visited recently was $292 an hour. I would be intrigued to find out what a taxpayer funded ABC presenter like Barrie Cassidy receives for his two hours work a week. Some in the commentariat are saying, 'If you don't like the pay and conditions, resign from parliament.' I have never complained about my pay and conditions, and the day I do I will resign. No-one forces me to do this job and never has, but I continue on because every day of the week people come to me seeking my help. Every day I work to benefit my community and my state, and for northern Australia. So I say to the hate mailers and the dishonest journalists: if you have such strong views and think that the current group of parliamentarians is so corrupt and dishonest, why do you not offer yourself for election to parliament so that you can come in here and cure the ills that you see in all other current parliamentarians?

Could I return to the facts about the gold pass, rather than the lies that the commentariat continually publish to misrepresent the facts. The Life Gold Pass was banned prospectively three or four years ago, so all politicians who were not eligible for it prior to 2014 were never going to be eligible for it. But, at the time, the changes to the gold pass eligibility were accompanied by changes to the pay structure so that parliamentarians were then paid much, much more—more in line with the work they do—and to compensate for the removal of some benefits like the Life Gold Pass. But those who had finished their service in parliament prior to that time were not so compensated. So this legislation does not apply to current politicians, only to a few former parliamentarians, and takes away part of the conditions of employment retrospectively, without any corresponding compensation for taking of a property right.

However, if we are to govern by what is popular or not popular at any period of time, and if that is the position of the government and the opposition, then why are we only partly rolling over to populism? Why are we exempting former prime ministers from this ban and allowing them to continue to use the Life Gold Pass forever? Quite frankly, I think they should continue to receive the benefit, because I know it was given to them at the time they were prime ministers and I know most of them use the benefit responsibly, usually to fulfil engagements that arise because of their former positions. The same principle applies to former treasurers, former foreign ministers, former agriculture ministers, former health ministers and, I might say, to former long-serving backbenchers, who are often asked to travel to meetings to speak on matters on which they have some expertise. I am sure a former Greens leader uses his gold pass to go around spreading his message. But I know the public think the main offenders of this so-called abuse of the system are former prime ministers, and the statistics show they are the biggest users. So why are we exempting them from the ban? Perhaps, from Labor's point of view, it is because there are four former Labor prime ministers and only one former Liberal Prime Minister.

I will be moving amendments in the committee stage to legislate to remove the Life Gold Pass benefit from everyone. I gave everyone notice of this two or three days ago. And I say I think this is wrong, but if I am a minority of one in this parliament who believes that retrospective legislation is wrong then I cannot understand why this parliament will not at least be consistent and finish the Life Gold Pass for all former parliamentarians, not just some. I cannot fathom the logic behind allowing Julia Gillard, perhaps Australia's worst prime minister for a three-year term, to have a gold pass for the rest of her life, while someone like Peter Costello, who did magnificent work for Australia for 13 years, is banned.

Having retrospectively abolished the Life Gold Pass because of populist pressure, I am quite sure that it will not be long before trips by ministers to Europe and North America are called into question. For example, I note the Deputy Prime Minister made a pre-Christmas visit to Berlin. I know the good work that he did on behalf of Australia there, but populism will question it, think that it was just a pre-Christmas junket and demand that, if he has to go in future, the Deputy Prime Minister travels economy class to do his important and essential work in representing Australia at meetings around the world.

What do the punters think of the queues of big white limousines that line up outside Parliament House every day? Populism will decree that they should go, too, and that ministers and politicians should take a bus or a taxi, without any thought for the security reasons that make this service essential. Instead of those big flash offices in the electorate, perhaps politicians should just meet constituents in the privacy of their own homes. And, if we are to follow the populist approach, why bother with those hated, money-grabbing, self-serving politicians at all? Perhaps Hitler and Stalin or Idi Amin had the right idea: do not bother about a parliament and you do not have to bother about those pesky parliamentarians at all.

I repeat, service in this place is never about money and so-called perks. It is about doing what every single politician believes is right for Australia. I suspect that there will be no other politician that will have the courage to oppose the elements of this populist legislation that are retrospective, but I would certainly hope that those who espouse the populist cause and believe retrospectivity is not a problem for 100 or so former politicians who have no voice will at least support my amendments to include all former politicians, including prime ministers, in the ban. I will be fascinated to hear the logic on why the government and Labor would not support my amendments.

To summarise my position, I will support those parts of this bill that are prospective—that is, not retrospective. I will be moving amendments to remove the retrospective elements of the bill. If that fails, I will move an amendment to include all former MPs in the ban, including prime ministers. If that fails, I will then move an amendment to restrict the gold card pass to former prime ministers to a benefit that is commensurate to his or her length of service as prime minister.

In closing, can I again emphasise my total opposition to any retrospective legislation. If I am the only one in this parliament that believes retrospective legislation is bad, can I then ask the other parliamentarians, in the cause of consistency, to at least ensure that the ban of the Life Gold Pass applies to every single former politician and does not exempt some.

12:33 pm

Photo of Stirling GriffStirling Griff (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | | Hansard source

The Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 is all about stopping something that I believe should never have occurred in the first place. The gold pass scheme has always been an overly generous and, frankly, poorly justified use of taxpayer funds. It should never have been introduced, and once it became apparent that it was not always being used in the spirit that was intended, it should have been immediately axed. My colleague Nick Xenophon has been opposing the gold pass for some time. Like him, I agree that there is no valid reason for having it, and it needs to go.

I get that some already retired and soon-to-retire MPs are angry that the prized gold pass will be snatched from their grasp. But all need to remember we are here for the people, and the people expect us to pull our weight as much as the next person and do the right thing with what is their—the taxpayers—money. Expecting ongoing largesse at the taxpayers' expense and kicking up a stink when you do not get it is symptomatic of the sense of entitlement that must end. It does nothing for our credibility in the public's eye and has only served to help erode the public's faith in politicians.

The gold pass scheme most certainly does not pass the 'pub test'. There have been way too many instances of abuse, where former MPs have used their gold pass to go on holidays and to advance their own interests or lobbying businesses, rather than using it for travel that serves the public interest. And let's face it, the general public does not feel beholden to MPs once they have retired from politics, so there should not be any expectation of ongoing benefits. While it is not our preferred position, this bill means the gold pass will now only be available to former and future prime ministers and their spouses when their travel passes a public benefit test. That is fair enough.

This small reform will free up a lazy $1 million or so per year, which could be used towards more deserving programs that can better serve the community. For example, $1 million a year could be put towards gambling addiction services, community broadcasting, regional infrastructure or rural counselling services. There is a lot of good that can be done with that money. But we should not stop there. Why don't all MPs on short flights book economy airline seats instead of business? That alone would save many millions of taxpayer dollars and give MPs the opportunity to mix with the very people who voted for them. It is all about doing the right thing and reining in waste.

While I am on this topic, there most certainly needs to be a thorough rethink of the parliamentary entitlements system. The current system is confusing, complex and contradictory. It is no wonder many MPs fall foul of the rules, especially if they neglect to consider what the person on the street might make of their claim, legitimately made or not. 'Choppergate' should have been the last straw but it was not. We need to simplify the system and we need to have greater scrutiny and more deterrents to prevent the temptation to fudge claims. That is why, in 2015, my colleague Senator Xenophon introduced a bill that would have subjected travel claims to independent oversight, and that would have compelled MPs to disclose their expenses on a monthly basis and pay much higher penalties for transgressions. While those reforms failed to win support at the time, it is pleasing to see the government is finally moving in this same direction and adopting some of the same measures. There is still a lot more to do, but this bill to end the gold pass free ride is at least a step in the right direction. The government's move to set up an independent body to oversee travel expense claims is another big positive.

The independent parliamentary expenses authority, which is to be established through a separate bill, will advise on and audit travel expenses of parliamentarians and their staff. NXT will be scrutinising the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Bill closely to ensure it has the scope required to do its job effectively. The authority is ostensibly modelled on the UK's Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which has substantial investigative powers, and this is what we need. The UK's authority publishes claims so that they are open to public scrutiny and regularly subjects each MP's claiming patterns to data analysis to detect any red flags. Speaking on the ABC last month, the authority's chief executive acknowledged that it was not only a 'powerful regulatory tool' but that it was also a 'really, really powerful preventative tool'. It is not a perfect beast but it appears to be doing its intended job of acting as a deterrent to misuse.

We welcome the government's speedy work to get these two bills into parliament as they will go some way towards improving accountability. However, if the Prime Minister is serious about truly reforming the travel entitlements system and getting snouts out of the trough, he will also fully implement the recommendations made in last year's review of parliamentary entitlements and go further by doubling the penalties for breaches and quadrupling the penalties for repeat offenders, as my colleague Senator Xenophon and NXT has advocated. These measures, combined, would hopefully encourage MPs to be much more conservative and cautious about how they spend the public's money. To that end, we urge the Prime Minister to continue on this path and reign in the scope of entitlements, as he has indicated he intends to do, and to introduce tough legislation to make this happen sooner rather than later.

We want to see a clamp down that means MPs will no longer be able to use the reunion travel provisions for interstate family holidays. We would also expect that MPs would no longer be able to disguise personal travel as parliamentary business by tacking on a meeting during the trip—a loophole that has caught out a number of senior MPs and ministers who should have known better and who no doubt now regret their oversight. These much needed reforms would go a long way to preventing the type of circus we saw in early January, where the former health minister quit the front bench over her travel claims to the Gold Coast. Whilst she maintaining she had done nothing wrong, it is likely the system is what really let her down.

Work travel expenses are not gifts. We in the Nick Xenophon Team will continue to push for reforms that meet community expectations, reduce waste and hold those who flout the rules to account. We will continue to push for an entitlements system where transparency and accountability are paramount. To use a term coined by my colleague Senator Xenophon, the 'gravy plane' is circling the runway; it is now time to bring it in to land.

12:40 pm

Photo of Lee RhiannonLee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. The gold pass is a 99-year saga. It was 1918 when the scheme was first adopted. For decades and decades it rolled on probably because the public did not know about it, did not know how it worked. In the past couple of decades, the public have the become increasingly aware, increasingly concerned with MPs making decisions about their own allowances and about them voting on what they should be. The gold pass, the very name, sounds elitist. The very name smacks that we are out of touch. Really, what is happening here today is a victory for public opinion. We now have this legislation before us because it has become untenable for any party to keep saying: let's keep this bit of the gold pass; let's keep that bit—there is one little bit that is still being kept, and I will come back to it.

As I said, 99 years it has been rolling on and it is worth recapping how it has played out in the last 18 years or so because it is informative of this place and informative of why there is such deep cynicism amongst the public about how politicians work. I am very proud of how the Greens have handled this but, I acknowledge, this damages all politicians and the very institution of our parliament. Since 2002, we have seen responses to growing public concern about the scheme. In 2002 the reach of the gold pass was reduced to limit retired MPs to 25 return flights a year. In 2012, it was reduced again to 10 return flights. But interestingly, the Gillard government was in office at that time and they decided in that year to wind the whole scheme back to apply to MPs who retired after 2012. Why were the changes being made? Because the scandals kept breaking. I will make that point in the debate about the gold pass bill and in the next piece of legislation to be considered about setting up an authority.

Tragically, the history of parliamentary allowances is one of scandals. Periodically, the scandals break and the three pieces of legislation that we are considering are not going to stop that. We still need to go further. We still only have half measures—even though the Greens welcome them, have supported them and have called for them for a long time.

We are up to 2012, when the Gillard government was calling for the whole scheme to be wound up for MPs who retired after 2012. The 2013 election came along, the Gillard government was out and the Abbott government was in. We then had the 2014 budget. In that notorious budget that would have done so much damage to Australia, and certainly done damage to the coalition, was actually a commitment to further reduce the gold pass to all former members except prime ministers, which is what we have now. What we are dealing with now comes from the 2014-15 budget more than 2½ years, nearly three years ago.

What then becomes interesting is that the coalition government failed to act on it. It did not take the legislation through both houses, despite having the cross-party support that would have ensured the passage of the legislation. Clearly, there is an understanding in some quarters of parliament that this is just not good enough. It has to change. I imagine there are MPs in all parties who honestly believe that this has to change. Some of them would have been reacting to public opinion. It gets to the point of recognising legislation is needed, and legislation is moved, but the government does not do what it could have done and had the numbers to do: move it through both houses.

Then Mr Turnbull comes in; he becomes Prime Minister. He then apparently commits to it, but drags the chain. We had that situation that some of you might remember last year, where firstly the responsible minister, Minister Scott Ryan, promised that the bill will be introduced before Christmas. But then, lo and behold, Prime Minister Turnbull said that we are too busy. Remember that time? Senators would have to remember that period last year, when it was like the coalition were treading water because they did not have enough legislation before the parliament. It is a situation that happens now and again. They were waiting for key bills to come from the House of Representatives. Clearly, there was time. We can always make time, particularly for something as important as this. It did not happen.

Now, it is happening. Why is it happening? Over the Christmas period, again, there were more scandals. There were more scandals, this time involving a government minister, the health minister. It involved trips to investment properties and all sorts of things. We can relive all of those others scandals that have occurred. I will not go through all of them now—I will do that when I speak on the next legislation—but there have been some really unsavoury ones involving weddings, trips to polo matches and trips to buy investment properties, where people used their travel allowances to help to do it. The scandals put the focus back on how the system works.

Particularly, the stand-out, very obvious one—the legislation was sitting there—is this gold pass. The good news is that the government has decided to bring the legislation through, but do they still really want the gold pass to be alive for 100 years or up to 99 years? Now is the time to end it completely. That is why the Greens are moving amendments that would remove Prime Ministers from getting the gold pass. That is the whole box and dice that should happen here. It should end now, otherwise the government is going to come to regret it. There is no justification for keeping this going. That is the Greens approach: the gold pass should now be put in the dustbin of history. I would say that that would be a small step to restoring public confidence in how MPs undertake their work. It would be an achievement.

It is an issue that we have given considerable attention to. I know a number of other senators have given attention to it over time. It looks like we are all on the same page with what is before us, but we need to go further. Again, let us remember what has accompanied those many scandals involving MPs misusing their allowances is that the government of the day then calls an inquiry. All those inquiries have made recommendations about the very issue that we are dealing with and how long it has taken. The gold pass has been around for 99 years and many people have benefited. It now does not have the confidence of the public, it is not needed and it brings discredit to us all. It should be wound up and it should be wound up completely.

12:48 pm

Photo of Cory BernardiCory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | | Hansard source

From the outset, in a brief contribution to this debate, I have to state my distaste for retrospective legislation. I do not think it is appropriate for governments of any stripe to pursue it because it disadvantages people who go into circumstances with the expectation of certainty. However, I must say that the public demand for changes to the life gold pass is entirely appropriate. I must also add that the reason we are here dealing with this in a legislative capacity is because those who had received the benefit of the life gold pass and other post-parliamentary benefits, for service in this place or in the other place in years past, overextended the mark and sought to entrench their claims in law via the High Court. I will have a little bit more to say about that in a moment. It has made legislative amendment necessary rather than the agreement that the entitlement should be reduced to zero or one or two trips along the way.

Notwithstanding that caveat and reservations about retrospective legislation, I intend to support this. I also intend to support Senator Macdonald's amendments. That is on the principle that far too often in this place we decide that we are going to enact bills, the loss of privileges or some negative aspects of whatever we do up here, and that is always going to affect other people. We are always carving out exemptions. Sometimes we are carving them out for ourselves, which is wrong, and sometimes we are carving them out for other sections of society. If we are serious about bringing parliamentary benefits into line with public expectations, we will take steps to remove the excesses as fully and broadly as we can.

When Senator Macdonald moves his amendment to say we are going to get rid of the gold pass for all former politicians, I will be supporting that. I will also support his amendment, which is to limit the benefits of the gold pass to former Prime Ministers—should Senator Macdonald's first amendment not be successful—on the basis of the length of service, because I think that is once again a step in the right direction. However, I am also going to be moving three amendments of my own. Some of them may not be necessary depending on the success or otherwise of Senator Macdonald's amendments, but I will foreshadow them.

I believe that the office of Prime Minister has been unbelievably diminished by the activities and actions of some people in this place over the last 10 years. We have had a revolving door of Prime Ministers. I do not know anyone who thought or really would have envisaged that we could have five Prime Ministers over the course of 10 years. If we believe that the office of Prime Minister occupies a respected position in our community—and it should—and we want to ensure that it maintains its dignity and value and respect by the general public and that prime ministers do have a role to play in public life, we need to send a very clear message that they have to actually do some dignity to the office themselves. And their colleagues need to lend support to that, rather than just have what I have described as the 'hunger games' of trying to climb that big mountain, to say, 'I was Prime Minister', whether for a day, a month or a year, and then you can live off the fat of the Australian people for the remainder of your life. I think that is wrong.

Barry O'Farrell, the former premier of New South Wales, thought it was wrong. When he became premier he said of the revolving door of the Labor disease, as it was then, in New South Wales—installing premiers until their use-by date, after a few months or a couple of years—that there has to be a qualifying period for any postparliamentary entitlements accruing or affording to former premiers. He set that time I think as five years for a premier to have served, and then it was limited to one year postparliamentary. There is also a Liberal precedent, I think, in Western Australia, where current Premier Barnett—and I do not know whether this has been enacted—said that a premier had to serve a minimum period before receiving some postparliamentary benefits on the basis of being premier. He was taking away the office and staff and was reducing it to a secretarial service for a fixed period.

Our counterparts in New Zealand, who are held up as the great economic modellers, with transparency and everything else, have done a very similar thing over there. Now, they do have generous benefits for their former prime ministers. I think that is reasonable, given that there is a status of the office and they go into the annals of history, but they do have to serve a minimum qualifying period.

So, I will be moving some amendments that if a Prime Minister is to be afforded the Gold Pass they need to have served for four continuous years in that role. That means basically that every Prime Minister living up until post the Howard Prime Ministership would be included and eligible for continuing benefits in this regard. So, we will not be disadvantaging those who have served our country for a period of four years or more. But it also means that the four prime ministers we have had since then—or five, if you count the double period of Mr Rudd—would not be eligible for parliamentary Gold Pass travel, because none of them have met the four-year qualifying period. I think that is entirely in keeping with the expectations of the Australian people, because I do not know too many who think that we have been particularly well served over the past decade in politics.

The second amendment I will be moving is in relation to the other postparliamentary benefits that are afforded to former prime ministers. These of course are not legislated, to my knowledge. They are actually at the whim of the Prime Minister of the day. You can always bet that you want to treat your predecessor as you want to be treated by your successor, whenever that comes. And there is nothing more sure in this place than that you will have a successor—every single one of us will; the institution rolls on. So, why does anyone want to rock the boat? I think it is absolutely important that when considering the potential cost to the taxpayer—and it is relatively modest, I will say—the potential cost and the lifetime cost to the taxpayer of providing these benefits to former prime ministers, particularly short-serving ones, is quite extensive.

I will give you a case in point. For the two most recent prime minsters, who are no longer in parliament, in the most recent six-monthly reports it is about $150,000 per annum for each of them. So, it is $300,000 or so per year. Sometimes that gets a bit higher in busier years and sometimes it is a bit less. Nonetheless, the prime ministers we have had over the past 10 years have, with the assistance of those in this place, lumbered a debt burden of $20,000 on every man, woman and child in this country, or $90,000 for every child in this country. I think the Australian people have paid enough, quite frankly. I wonder why we have to continue paying for a very poor job. So, I will be moving an amendment, and I hope it wins support, that former prime ministers will be eligible for postparliamentary benefits only after serving a minimum of four years.

Finally, my third amendment relates to what I call the massive overreach by the former members and senators association when they took to the High Court not only this Gold Pass application but their desire to improve their own postparliamentary superannuation benefits. It is extraordinary, the self-interest attached to this. Rather than being happy with the status quo, which gave them a set level of income over a period of time, they thought they deserved more because of some changes that had happened and the incorporation of some separate parliamentary benefits into the salary package of current serving MPs—extraordinary. And the High Court made it very, very clear. It said that the Gold Pass is not a property right, and so it can be varied by the parliament. It also made it very clear that the former superannuation system, the defined benefit pension scheme, was not a property right either and could be amended.

For the people at home or anyone listening to this, the former scheme, before 2004, allowed a politician to retire on a fixed percentage of a serving backbencher's salary plus whatever additional remuneration it had for the office holder, for the rest of their natural life. And after their natural life ended, that benefit went to their defined spouse, whomever that may have been at the time. As people say, the closest thing to eternal life is a government program. Well, this is pretty much as close as you can get to it, for MPs and senators. That is completely out of step with public perspective. That is why, in 2004, it was changed so that you had to meet a minimum age before you could avail yourself of it. I think it was 55 at the time, but I will stand corrected on that, if it is wrong. Then, during the Howard-Latham election campaign, Mr Howard, the then Prime Minister, said, 'No, we're no longer doing that', and we have had what is the same as for every other public servant since then—a contribution scheme for superannuation that is on par or exactly the same as for the rest of the public service.

But that has not stopped those people who have retired from this place previously at a very early age from continuing to receive, effectively, a salary or a wage from the taxpayer simply for being retired. As I go back to it, retrospective legislation does not sit that well with me, but if we are doing it, let's do it properly. I think it is wrong that someone at 38, 39 or 40 years of age could have retired from this place and spent the next 60 or 70 years of their life, or however long they live—if they live to 110, it would be 70 years, wouldn't it?—and get paid by the Australian taxpayer for a minimum of what? Eight years service, it was then. There are examples of those who have done exactly that: they have got out of this place after serving—they are not even 40 years of age yet—and continue to be fed by the taxpayers through the parliamentary pension system. Normally that would sit with disapproval—and I know the public disapprove of it—and I would not want to touch it, but the fact is a group of those people who were receiving that benefit sought to overreach and grab even more through the High Court, and the High Court made it very clear that this is not a property right and parliament is free to make amendments to it where it is appropriate.

One of the amendments—and I think it is entirely appropriate and quite generous—is that those who are eligible for those defined benefit parliamentary pension schemes should not be able to access it until they reach the preservation age, like the rest of Australia, which I have today set at 60 years of age. Some will be impacted by that. There are some who will turn 60 this year who will not be particularly disadvantaged, but it is completely out of step to think that someone who retired at a very early age—in their late 30s or 40s, a decade or so ago, and so is my age today at 47 or 48—is still drawing a salary from the public purse for work that was done back when they were in the Senate or the House. That will be an amendment. I would like to see it supported. I will canvass that with my colleagues over the course of time, but I think that in the interests of transparency and openness we need to start to get in line with the public attitudes towards this, and that means we have to accept that we should be remunerated adequately. I believe it is much better for us to have transparency in our expenditure in relation to our office. I have pushed repeatedly over many years that every dollar we spend in our office should be disclosed in a very sensible amount of time in a searchable database so that the court of public opinion can judge us for how we are equipping ourselves or acquitting ourselves with public money.

It means that we also need to address some of the—I am going to say 'off balance sheet' items—benefits that come the way of politicians and are not part of our salary package. It is far better for us to have a single salary scale and say, 'This is what it is. Like it or lump it, that's what politicians are going to get.' If they want their spouses to travel with them then they can pay for their spouses to travel with them. If they want to bring their families to Canberra, they can pay for their families to come to Canberra. If they want to avail themselves of a whole range of other things, they can pay for them rather than looking for some mechanism by which they can take advantage of entitlements. I use the term 'entitlements' but that is not what it really is; it is about the taxpayers' money. I will be moving those amendments when we get into the committee stage, and I thank the Senate for its time.

1:03 pm

Photo of Brian BurstonBrian Burston (NSW, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | | Hansard source

The great divide in Australian politics today is not between left and right but between the elite ruling class and ordinary people. For decades we have trusted the elites to look after the difficult job of running the country, believing that they had the best interests of the country at heart. That trust is evaporating now, and the selfish and absurdly generous handouts that politicians have given to themselves is a part of the reason why. People can see now that the elites are ruling for their own benefit and not for the benefit of the country. In my first speech I spoke about how the political class was hostile, contemptuous and disconnected from ordinary Australians, and what is clear today is that ordinary Australians are saying 'enough is enough'. Prime Minister Turnbull can see his support evaporating, and the Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 is a desperate attempt to prevent that, but it is too little, too late. It is too little because Prime Minister Turnbull takes care to preserve his own cushy post-retirement benefits even while he strips them away from his colleagues, and too late because the public sees right through this sudden road-to-Damascus conversion. No-one believes that all these politicians, who have occupied this place for decades and grown fat on their special privileges, have only just discovered that there is waste and abuse of entitlements.

They are like the police chief in the film Casablanca'shocked, shocked' to realise that the public is getting ripped off. They say they are fixing the system, but the system was never broken; it operates exactly how it was intended to. The exploitation of the entitlements system is not a bug; it is a feature. Many of the politicians in the major parties talk about the sacrifice they make to serve the public. Yes, politicians work long hours and often have to spend time away from family; so do truckies. But truckies do not get quarter-million-dollar salaries, truckies do not get their own extra-generous superannuation entitlements and truckies do not get to change the nation's laws to suit themselves and their mates.

You want to see someone making a sacrifice for the public good? Go talk to the people paying your salary with their tax dollars. The Australian people have had a gutful. They are not going to be satisfied just with ending free post-retirement travel for MPs; they want to see the whole putrid swamp drained. That means no more taking the family to Uluru, no more taking helicopters to party meetings and no more supposedly independent remuneration tribunal findings that just so happen to find you all deserve $50,000 pay rises. The Australian public will not be satisfied until their politicians get the same deal as everyone else: they get paid for the job they do, while they are doing it—nothing more and nothing less.

(Quorum formed)

1:09 pm

Photo of Richard Di NataleRichard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | | Hansard source

I speak in support of the Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. It did take quite a while to get here, but we have finally got here. We will support this legislation, but we also have some amendments that we will be putting forward. We got here because of a number of scandals—far too many—that have occurred over many years, diminishing the standing of politicians in the eyes of the public. Politicians are one of the least trusted professions in the country. When you go from being an ordinary general practitioner to being a politician you understand what it is like to take a slide down the rankings when it comes to respected professions.

It is hardly any surprise. We have members of parliament who claim to attend weddings, some MPs who actually claim for their honeymoon, MPs who scope out investment properties, some MPs catching a $5,000 helicopter flight, when a train ride costs $8 and, indeed, when you go by Comcar you would actually get there more quickly. So it is very important that we as a chamber start to make progress on this issue.

Photo of Ian MacdonaldIan Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Comcar? You don't use a Comcar, do you?

Photo of Richard Di NataleRichard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | | Hansard source

I note the interjection from Senator Macdonald, who thinks it is okay to continue to protect the privileged life we as politicians lead. I understand he thinks that unlimited international travel is something that politicians should be entitled to. Well, we don't, Senator Macdonald. We actually think that it is about time that politicians started to act in a way that is consistent not just with what the community expects of us but is actually consistent with what is fair and decent.

This bill is an important step forward and we welcome it. We think the government has made some significant steps in the right direction. It will remove significant perks for former members of parliament but there is still a long way to go. We still have the pre-2004 pension system. So if you were elected prior to 2004 you get this incredibly generous pension system, which is a significant liability on the government budget. At a time when this government is trying to take money out of the pockets of single parents, of young people and of pensioners, they think it is okay that members of parliament, former ministers for example, can receive more than $200,000 a year in a parliamentary pension and then on top of that get paid for their 'jobs for the boys' gigs, whether it be as human rights representatives with DFAT or indeed in their ambassadorial roles. Really! If we are going to do this properly, isn't it about time we end the rort that is the pre-2004 pension system.

We have a situation in this country where ordinary people are getting squeezed, where we are seeing very little wage growth, and yet pollies' salaries are already in the top 1.6 per cent of taxpayers. On top of that we get a $32,000 electorate allowance. Only a few moments ago in this chamber we had the Labor party and Liberal Party joining together to say, 'No, we do not want any restrictions on politicians pocketing that money.' A reasonable amendment to this legislation, or indeed a reasonable motion, would be that that money, which is called an electorate allowance, actually be spent on the electorate, on politicians doing their parliamentary duties, rather than that money being pocketed as salary.

Photo of Ian MacdonaldIan Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

So you give yours back, do you?

Photo of Richard Di NataleRichard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | | Hansard source

No, Senator Macdonald. Again, I will take that interjection. We do not give ours back; we spend it on the electorate. We spend it on our parliamentary duties. You, Senator Macdonald, might choose to pocket it but we do not. We think that that money is there for an intended purpose and there should be rules in place to ensure that money cannot be taken as salary.

These perks have serious flow-on effects when it comes to the making of public policy. We have budgets like that 2014 Tony Abbott budget handed down, because they completely lose touch of what it is like for ordinary people, the great bulk of the population. They lose touch with what it is like to go out to a dinner or to a business lunch and actually have to pay for it. Yes, it is true, we work hard. Politicians do work hard—it is a tough gig—but we all chose to do it. And, guess what, so many other members of the community work bloody hard, too. My dad was an electrician. I lost count of the times he got home from work and collapsed on the couch, because he had been up at 6, inside roofs and underneath houses, wiring up in 40 degree temperatures, and then came home and collapsed on the couch at 7 o'clock that night. He worked hard and so too do the nurses who care for the injured people. They work hard. The teachers work hard looking after kids. Community lawyers are working hard for people without a voice. Counsellors who support people at women's refuges, shop assistants, farm workers, the people who make your coffee every day in this place, they all work hard. The Comcar drivers and the gardeners, they work hard, too. And guess what? They do not get the perks that we get. They do not get the pay that we get. Let us make sure that the system of entitlements that exists at the moment is actually consistent with the lives that ordinary people lead.

This bill does go some way to helping us get there, and that is why we are supporting it. We absolutely support the intent of this legislation. We have been talking now for many years about establishing an independent authority, like that being proposed by the government, as part of a broader national anticorruption watchdog. We believe that this body should sit within that framework. Having that body sit within that framework gives people confidence.

If anything, the wake-up call that parliaments right around the world have received from the election of the likes of Donald Trump in the US and, indeed, Brexit in the UK is that people are feeling unrepresented. They feel that the distance between their elected representatives and the community is now so great that they have decided that they have had a gutful, and they are looking for other options. Who can blame them?

We need to make sure that what we do in this place addresses the huge and growing democratic deficit that I think is undermining good governance in this nation. That is why it is so critical that we ensure that the parliamentary allowances system is reformed—but reformed thoroughly so that we get a root-and-branch review. We will be continuing to argue that the electorate allowance should be spent on the community, on politicians embarking on their parliamentary duties, and not taken as salary.

As my colleague Senator Rhiannon said earlier, this is regarded by many in this place as a backdoor pay increase. It should not be done that way. It should be spent on people conducting their duties. That is why the pre-2004 pension system needs to go. It is staggering that we have former ministers on pensions of over $200,000 who are in another job—usually allocated by the government of the day—and also receiving a salary for that work, earning sometimes in excess of $300,000, $400,000 or $500,000. That is completely inappropriate, and we need to end the parliamentary pensions system as it currently exists.

With reference to this bill, we have some amendments proposed by Senator Bernardi which would make a politician's superannuation available only at the age of 60, which is the preservation age available for everybody else to access super. We do not know what the budget impact of this proposal is. Most people on the Life Gold Pass system would probably be close to 60, but it is still a principle that is worthy of support. It is still a principle that is worthy of support.

The other proposed amendment that would require a PM to have served at least four years before being eligible for the gold pass is an improvement, and it should be supported, but we believe that we should have no exceptions. The gold pass should go. If you are a former Prime Minister, you are engaged in many other activities and often have speaking engagements, earning significant salary for the work that you do. You should be able to pay for your international and interstate travel. Most of the engagements that you are involved in, if they are work related, will be paid for by the people who are inviting you to participate, so why on earth do we need to continue the gold pass for former prime ministers?

Like in our proposed amendment, the Prime Minister would be aligned with other MPs under the amendment proposed by One Nation. However, there is a further amendment that would deny former PMs the ability to have offices and staff. Because this establishment of offices and staff is created by regulation, and this bill attempts to cancel out any benefit under any administrative scheme, the impacts are potentially very wide. It is for that reason that we cannot support that specific amendment.

Senator Xenophon's proposed amendments would increase penalties from the proposed loading of 25 per cent to up to 200 per cent. If there is more than one contravention within 12 months, the penalty would be lifted to 400 per cent, which is why we will consider supporting those amendments.

We have a broken system. We have a broken system that for too long has allowed politicians to be able to claim expenses for things that ordinary members of the community would not dream of claiming for. Being able to go to your own honeymoon and claim it on the taxpayer is remarkable. Being able to catch a helicopter for a flight that would take you longer in the chopper than it would to drive by car—$5,000 on the taxpayer—is remarkable. Going away to a five-star holiday resort with the family for two weeks and then claiming it as a work expense is just not on.

We need to acknowledge that we have been given a wake-up call in this parliament. We have been given a wake-up call as a result of what we have seen right around the world and certainly in our own most recent election, where people in greater numbers are looking for alternatives to the Coles and Woolies duopoly: the Labor and Liberal parties.

What we need to do is ensure that we fix this system and fix it properly. We will support this legislation, but it is important that we go further. It is important that the electorate allowance be restricted to politicians' work and not be taken as salary, and it is about time we got rid of the pension scheme that allows people who are working in other work to also claim a pension, sometimes in excess of $200,000 a year. But, having said all of that, we do welcome these changes, and we look forward to more coming down the line so that we can start to restore people's trust in what is a broken system.

1:21 pm

Photo of Nick XenophonNick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | | Hansard source

Can I indicate that I support the second reading of the Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. I hope it is not the kiss of death to say nice things about Minister Ryan, but Senator Ryan has dealt with these matters in a very assiduous and, I think, a very decent manner and has brought these matters to fruition. It is better late than never, but I think that the minister's level of consultation, from my point of view and from my colleagues' point of view, has been very good. I think we should acknowledge the work and energy that has gone into this to bring us to this stage. Can I say that, in terms of this legislation, I did try and bring this—the so-called gold-pass bill—on for a vote some time a number of months ago, but the government said it was not ready to do so. It is a pity we could not have dealt with it earlier.

In relation to this bill, the issue of transparency is absolutely critical. As a member of the South Australian parliament many years ago, I moved to have politicians' overseas travel reports put online. It took two or three years to get my colleagues in the major parties onside, but now it is a matter of course. People should know for significant amounts of expenditure what the MP or legislative councillor did. In turn, that gives a level of scrutiny and rigor. That is something that we will be discussing when we turn to the other bill about the authority that is being set up.

In terms of the specific amendments, I believe it is important that there be adequate penalties if there are breaches in the use of entitlements. It is in the context of this bill that I will be moving an amendment to ensure that, if a recipient has made a wrongful claim, there will be a penalty of 200 per cent of the amount claimed. That would ratchet up for repeat offenders up to 400 per cent. It is practical in this context. There will be a new mechanism in place where you can get a preliminary determination as to whether you can make a particular claim or not, so there should be no excuse for claims being made that ought not to be made. Also, having claims publicly available on a monthly basis would give a level of scrutiny that would keep all of us on our toes. I think that is a good and positive thing. So I will be moving that amendment.

I also note the amendment of Senator Bernardi on the issue of former prime ministers' entitlements. I have a different position to Senator Di Natale. I think if there is going to be any exception it should be for former prime ministers if they served for more than a year. I think four years is too long a period of time. We seem to be living now at a time when we not only have 24-hour news cycles but seem to have prime ministers who do not last for much more than 24 months. I think it is important that we acknowledge, if you have served this nation as its leader, that important role. If you have been head of this nation from whichever party you represented, I do not think it is inappropriate that you are extended a gold pass to attend community events and functions. I think some would say, 'That can be paid for by whoever is inviting them.' But, if it is a remote community or a community group that has very stretched resources, I do not think it is reasonable for them to pay for the cost of flying a former PM over and putting them up to participate in a community event. It can be important having a former PM attending and being part of a community event, whether it be a conference, school opening or whatever. If it is a legitimate event then I think we should honour our former prime ministers. So I have a different view in relation to that to what others do.

I welcome this legislation. I welcome the committee stage of this bill. I note Senator Macdonald's views on retrospectivity. I know it is a heavy burden and a heavy onus on the parliament, but I believe that we ought to deal with these matters. The High Court dealt with the issue of the gold pass. I think it has been settled by virtue of the High Court's approach on this. I am sure we will hear more about the legal principles involved. I indicate that I support this legislation, but I believe we should go further. If we want to give this legislation teeth, there need to be some appropriate penalties in place which will keep all MPs and senators on their toes and strengthen public confidence in the system that we have.

1:26 pm

Photo of Pauline HansonPauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I support this bill in principle but I do not feel it goes far enough. I make mention of the amendments I will be putting up to the bill. Just this week and also prior to this I have spoken to people on my Facebook page. The question I asked them was: how would you describe politicians' lurks and perks? Grant Mac said, 'Snouts in the trough.' Carol Smith said, 'Greedy. Not necessary. Over the top. Ridiculous. Disgusting.' Bryan Kearney said, 'Antiquated.' Ryan McDonald said, 'Taxpayer theft.' Drew Woods said, 'Despicable.' Barry Odorici said, 'Grubs.' Janette Howard said, 'Outrageous.' Deborah Fenwick said, 'Disgraceful.' Steve Kelly said, 'Parasites on our society. The age of entitlement is over for our politicians.' Charlie Mike said, 'Highly fraudulent.' Leanne Irving said, 'Criminal. Unworthy. Leeches. Greedy. Parasites.' This is how the general public feel about politicians and their lurks and perks. I really felt sorry to get this response back from the people we are here to represent, but that is the general feeling. I hear it day in and day out.

I remember Joe Hockey standing up in this parliament and saying, 'The age of entitlement is over.' It is. We are not the wealthy country we once were, and yet we are still asking the public to pull their belts in. That is evident in the omnibus bill that the government wants to pass in this parliament. We are at a stage where we are reaching $500 billion in debt because of excessive government spending, mismanagement of moneys and the ever-increasing welfare payments that we have, trying to provide for people who are struggling, increasing costs to families, pensioners, refugees and whatever is happening to health care. There is an ever-increasing cost. So, yes, the age of entitlements is over.

I have always said that we as leaders of this nation must set an example. I understand Senator Macdonald saying it should not be retrospective. But then again I will say that the legislation the government are putting forward in the parliament is actually retrospective because they are asking the people who are receiving a helping hand from the taxpayer to take cuts or to change their entitlements. Why should former members of this house be treated any differently? I think everyone should be treated the same, equally. That has always been my call. We should set an example.

I feel strongly about this because I went to a cabinet meeting before being elected and I had two women from Meals on Wheels come up to me and say: 'We desperately need funding. We cannot service the disabled or pensioners with meals on a daily basis.' They are an organisation run by volunteers who put long hours of work into it. In Queensland they receive $2.80 per meal from the government. That is what they are given to fund it. They are crying out. They serve about 37,000 meals a day throughout Australia—on average, 10 million a year. Just last night and last week I went to Ovarian Cancer Australia. Here we have an organisation that is a charity trying to help women who are dying from ovarian cancer—1,200 a year.

These are only two of the charities. The Burrumbuttock Hay Run, which I have been on twice in the last two years and I will be going on again next week, is a charity organisation run by man by the name of Brendan Farrell, who gets other truckies who give their time and hay supplied to deliver to farmers in North Queensland who are desperate because of the drought and because their stock are dying. They get no assistance from the government whatever: it is all charity.

These are only a few organisations that I mention here, but I am sure that there are thousands of others who are looking for assistance. I think that pulling back on some expenses wherever we can to save money and putting it where it is really needed would be the path that I would encourage my fellow senators and members of this place to pursue.

As a case in point showing why the public are so angry about this, consider Tony Burke:

Tony Burke: Taxpayers slugged $2.2 million for travel costs including charter flights on VIP jets

Labor frontbencher Tony Burke has slugged taxpayers close to $2.2 million for travel costs, including charter planes and flying on VIP jets. On top of $2.4 million in office and phone expenses, this makes him the parliament’s $4.6 million dollar man … Mr Burke was forced to pay back a $94 Comcar fare, which he had used to take him to a Robbie Williams concert, and admitted he flew his family business class to Uluru during the 2012 school holidays, under the family entitlements scheme.

Then you go to retired Labor senator John Hogg, a low-profile politician who would hardly be recognised in Sydney. He racked up almost $1.4 million in overseas junkets before leaving parliament. Retiring WA Senator Mark Bishop and retiring Queensland Senator Brett Mason claimed almost $500,000 combined for overseas jaunts dating back to late 2008. Former Father of the House, former Sydney MP Philip Ruddock, is another frequent flyer, making 12 overseas expense claims in seven years.

That is what the public are angry about, and I do not blame them. This is where I agree with Senator Macdonald about the former prime ministers. For the last 20 years I have been calling for former prime ministers to no longer be on taxpayer-funded services. Gough Whitlam was on it for 39 years—a man who was in office for three years, then thrown out overwhelmingly by the public; yet he was on taxpayer-funded services for 39 years. Malcolm Fraser—40 years. Bob Hawke—still on it after 26 years. Paul Keating—21 years. John Howard—10 years. Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd—four years—two prime ministers who put this country in so much debt and are still a cost to the taxpayer.

The amendment that I will be moving is that the Commonwealth—in other words, the taxpayer—must not provide any benefits under any administrative scheme to a person because the person is a retired former prime minister. At present, the entitlements given to a former PM are at the present prime minister's discretion. I believe that is a gross conflict of interest.

I want to explain why I am calling for this. I have an office in Brisbane CPO, and near my office is the office of Kevin Rudd. I have never seen him there once. I have seen a couple of his staffers, but have I seen Kevin Rudd? No. That office must be an extreme expense to the taxpayer. I think he spends most of the time overseas. Let me inform the public of what we, the taxpayers—I am a taxpayer as well, so that is why I include myself—are paying. We will go to Julia Gillard. Domestic scheduled fares are $7,872.03; car costs nearly $7,000; office facilities $50,530. Go to the Hon. Robert Hawke: domestic air travel $9,543.85; car costs $9,216; office facilities $62,140. We are still paying the cost of those office facilities for a gentleman who is in his 80s. Or we go to the Hon. John Howard: domestic air travel $14,378; car costs just over $13,000; office facilities $112,434.42. Then go to the Hon. Paul Keating. His domestic fares were $1,491; car costs $9,059; office facilities $62,979. As for Kevin Rudd, his office facilities were $63,210; car costs $9,658; and domestic scheduled fares $2,274. To me, these people lost their jobs. The public do not get paid their services when they lose their jobs or when they retire. Most of these members in this House have not retired; they have actually been thrown out by the people because the people did not want them in this place any longer. And, yet, we still support them and pay for their fares. Like I said, the age of entitlement is over.

With some of the ones here for the Life Gold Pass holders, I will mention a couple. Fran Bailey: over $6,000. Simon Crean: $9,827—this is all for domestic fares. David Hawker: over $4,000. Michael Ronaldson: over $7,000. Peter Slipper, the former member of the lower house who was also Speaker: $12,620. These are costs that the people are fed up with.

I will be moving an amendment to this bill that former prime ministers are not paid. I do not believe it should be from this day on. I do believe it should be retrospective—that those should be cut off immediately. I would like to see that money put to better use. There are people here who, as I said, are struggling. Charities need it; organisations need it; our health system needs it; our schools need it; our disabled need it. There are more people that require this—especially when we have these people that can do speaking engagements and get thousands of dollars for it. And not only the former members—their spouses and partners are also entitled to this. It is not good enough. It is definitely not good enough. It has to change.

I call on the members to support my amendment with regards to the former prime ministers and to have consideration for the taxpayers of this nation.

1:40 pm

Photo of Malcolm RobertsMalcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | | Hansard source

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to speak in favour of this bill. However, I want to mention some extra initiatives that we can also adopt.

Accountability has long been established as a fundamental part of Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party—accountability to the people. Senator Hanson has discussed this for 20 years, and we endorse her stance wholeheartedly. In my first media conference after being named a successful candidate for the Senate, I raised three issues when I was asked what my priorities were. The first word I uttered was 'accountability'—to restore accountability. After nine years of dealing with politicians in this chamber and also in the House of Representatives, I recognised that there was very, very little accountability in Australia's federal parliament. The second issue was cost of living. Accountability comes in there, as well. The third aspect was security—economic security and personal security and safety. Accountability comes in there. So accountability is more than just pollies' perks, or putting a lid on them. But that is a good place to start.

Before I entered parliament, I can recall that Ms Bronwyn Bishop was held accountable for her waste of money with the helicopter rides. There was a big kerfuffle from the Labor Party about that—and rightly so. But then when the government raised the fact that Mr Tony Burke's expenditures were so high, as Senator Hanson has just discussed, everyone went silent. And that is not good enough because accountability is fundamental in our parliamentary representative system of governance. We are representing the people; we are governing on their behalf.

When I went on my listening trip through South-West Queensland just last month, people were disgusted—with not only the behaviour in the chambers but also the lack of accountability. People in Far North Queensland, when I went up there the previous month, were disgusted. We are just not getting to the points; we are not addressing people's needs. And there is something else about this, too: it is destroying parliament's credibility. It is destroying the credibility of every single member in Australia's parliament.

One way we can bring accountability is to track public spending by having the money actually tracked. One thing we know is that when government expenditure is tracked, especially spending by any political office, then people think twice before splashing the public cash around. And when we say 'track', we mean in real time—a web-based format that makes it easy for the public to search and view. That will terrify some members of parliament, but we welcome it.

Last month, in Bundaberg, I foreshadowed legislation coming from Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party with regard to a transparency portal. It is an inexpensive web-based computer program that displays all government expenditure on the internet in real time for public view. The moment a cent is spent, up it goes on the transparency portal for scrutiny by 10 million Australian adults and adolescents, because we know that they are the best at catching us out. This system has been proven to pay for itself many times over with the expenditure that is involved in the application implementation saved through higher accountability in very, very quick time. Once it is recovered, from there on we are making savings. The portal is used successfully throughout the United States and Europe. Now, it is our turn in Australia.

I was briefed on the portal's potential by Tim Andrews, executive director of the Australian Taxpayers' Alliance. He researched the concept further when he visited Washington DC in December last year. I also picked up word of that when I went to meet some of the Trump administration's transition team. We are delighted to learn now that senators such as Senator Bernardi have advocated for this system for quite some time. It is a proven system.

Pollies' perks, though, are just the tip of the iceberg of government wastage and a lack of accountability. Pollies' trips to the Gold Coast or enjoying black-tie parties on the taxpayers' purse are the types of things that the Labor and Liberal duopoly like to protect, so we do not expect much change to emanate from the old majors any time soon. Sadly, politicians' largesse is a drop in the ocean when compared to the amount government departments waste either consciously for window-dressing or through lack of accountability. The real benefit of an online portal is that the whole of government expenditure will be open to scrutiny, not just the offices of politicians.

Mr Andrews informed me that in the US the portal was used, and this is just one of many examples, to uncover the fact that in one state—I think it was Texas, but I am not sure—government printer cartridges were being double ordered, and a thrifty member of the public saved the government, just on that item alone, $500,000 a year. Within months of the portal being implemented overseas, most government departments immediately reduced expenditure significantly, as they realised they were being watched by millions of people. Ten million auditors in this country would be watching over our shoulders.

Last December I put the portal proposal to a community meeting in Coen, North Queensland, and received emphatic support. In Cape York, for example, the locals are wondering why millions—make that hundreds of millions—of taxpayer dollars are being spent on road funding when it is a well-known fact that similar roads cost a lot less to build, and there were some gross abuses of that process that they showed me. Locals have told me they expect a higher level of accountability from the government, and this portal is just one answer to the questions they have about the expenditure of their tax dollars.

But there is a second aspect to raising accountability, and that is the aspect of character—ethical issues. As a parliament, we need to lead by example. That is why the senators in Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party always fly economy class. It is a matter of example.

But we also need to go further, thirdly, in looking at accountability in all aspects. We need to come back to compliance with our Constitution. We need to remember that our Constitution involves competitive federalism. Contrary to the centralisation of funds and contrary to the centralisation of power in Canberra, our Constitution devolves power to the states, and we need to get back to that. Send many of the functions, such as the environment department, the health department and the education department, back to the states. That would save hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, it would save tens of billions of dollars. It would also give closer scrutiny to expenditure.

At the state level, we have seen the amalgamation of councils in Queensland, which has been counterproductive and inefficient. New South Wales still have not learnt from that, and now they are going through the same, with the people protesting but the state government still doing it. I have seen examples. I have been told by good councillors that we need to go back from the regional councils, the amalgamated councils, to shire and local councils, and here is where it really matters. When a councillor is walking around his or her district, they can see things. When the employees of the council are walking around, they can see things. Accountability is not just about a system. It is also about information and being close to the people using the system and using the information. Instead of someone calling up and dealing with a bureaucrat who then allocates resources from one side of the region to do something in another side of the region, they just get it done right there in the shire. Senator Hanson knows exactly what I am talking about, because that is the foundation of Senator Hanson's political skill and instinct. She has done that at the local level and done it highly successfully.

Regulations in fact distort. They put protection around public scrutiny. The other thing that happens with regulations is that, when people find a way around one regulation, we then patch it with another way. I have seen that so many times in my first three months in parliament—patches upon patches upon patches, each adding to the cost and, quite frankly, often destroying accountability. Regulations kill accountability, and they centralise.

But another thing is that, at the moment, our revenue in the form of taxation is separated from our spending. We have massive arguments in this house and in the other house about that waste. We need to have comprehensive tax reform to bring in a more efficient and effective tax system. That is a must, and it must be tied to spending.

As I said, accountability is a matter of character. We can put forward a solution immediately to increase the accountability of all spending at the federal level with a transparency portal. I want to finish with this summary: Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party is in favour of close scrutiny of every dollar that is spent by politicians and by public servants. Why? Because, like public servants, politicians serve the people. We are simply guardians of the taxpayers' money.

1:50 pm

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

Firstly, I would like to thank those senators who have contributed to this debate. The Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 implements changes to the Parliamentary Entitlements Act 1990 and the Members of Parliament (Life Gold Pass) Act 2002 consistent with reforms announced in November 2013 and the 2014-15 budget respectively, as well as those announced earlier this year. In addition to previous announcements, the bill accelerates the termination of access to travel under the Life Gold Pass scheme. The bill ceases Life Gold Pass travel on the day it commences for all current passholders, including spouses and de facto partners, other than retired former prime ministers and their spouse or de facto partner and renames the remaining benefit 'parliamentary retirement travel'.

The bill continues parliamentary retirement travel for qualifying current and future retired former prime ministers and their spouse or de facto partner. However, the amount of travel and the purpose of travel will be further limited. The bill reduces parliamentary retirement travel by retired former prime ministers from 40 to 30 domestic return trips per year and from 40 to 20 domestic return trips per year for their spouse or de facto partner. The bill requires that parliamentary retirement travel undertaken after 14 May 2014 be for the public benefit.

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

I will address many of the other issues raised in senators' speeches on the second reading when the amendments are brought forward in the committee stage of this bill. But I do want to respond to the contribution of Senator Rhiannon. The poison introduced by the Australian Greens into politics has been to assign a motive to actions, as Senator Rhiannon has done to me regarding the results of the delay of the introduction of this bill from last year. I am in no way complaining about criticism of my actions, but to assign a motive—you do not have a window into my soul. I made the decision, not the Prime Minister, to not bring this bill forward last year, and I might say the key factor was in fact the Greens joining with the Labor Party's intransigence on the government's legislating the two bills we sought a mandate for at the election at which we were successful: the ABCC and the registered organisations commission bills.

Over summer, the decision was taken to immediately abolish the Life Gold Pass rather than have a three- to six-year phase-out period, but it was a decision I took at the time, as has been highlighted by Senator Xenophon, who I thank for his contribution. This is a provision I am quite happy to say I inherited, but I made that decision last year. The government's commitment to addressing this issue is demonstrated by the fact that over summer the decision was taken to move to immediate abolition, not the phased-out abolition which existed in the previous draft bill, which would have seen this exist for up to two more parliaments. So, in the next bill—

Photo of Nick McKimNick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | | Hansard source

Only so you could look like you were doing something—

Photo of James McGrathJames McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | | Hansard source

I am sorry, I cannot quite hear you, Senator McKim.

Photo of Nick McKimNick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | | Hansard source

I said only so you could look like you were doing something with parliamentary entitlements.

Photo of James McGrathJames McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | | Hansard source

Well, this is the point. I am going to address this point—

Photo of Chris KetterChris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Minister, you should ignore interjections.

Photo of James McGrathJames McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I am going to take the interjection from Senator McKim. He does it quite a lot as well. By all means criticise actions, but—

Photo of John WilliamsJohn Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | | Hansard source

A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: you directed the minister to ignore the interjections; I agree with that. What about directing those who are actually doing the interjecting to cease from interjections, which are disorderly anyway?

Photo of Chris KetterChris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Williams. Yes, all members of the chamber are entitled to be heard in silence, and ministers should ignore interjections. I ask all senators to cease interjections.

Photo of James McGrathJames McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | | Hansard source

My apologies, Mr Acting Deputy President. This is part of the problem with modern debate, which the Greens have introduced. By all means criticise the government for not introducing this for a couple of years—or, indeed, over summer. But do not assign a motive to it. Don't you dare say to me that you know why I acted at this particular point, because there is a paper trail and there are conversations I have had with my colleagues. But this is the poison you have introduced into Australian politics. You seek windows into people's souls—you assign a motive. You try to assign a false motive rather than criticise people for their actions, and politics and debate are the worse for it. I have made it clear why the government has introduced this and I am happy to deal with criticism. But our commitment to addressing it is actually demonstrated by the fact that we have moved to immediate abolition rather than phased abolition, as was originally proposed.

As I outlined, a number of the contributions were actually about the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority and more general issues related to that. I will deal with those when the next bill comes forward for debate. At that, I commend this bill to the Senate.

Bill read a second time.