|
senate vote 2017-02-16#12
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2017-02-24 22:05:37
|
Title
Bills — Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2017; in Committee- Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 - in Committee - Gold Pass travel entitlement
Description
<p class="speaker">Pauline Hanson</p><p>by leave—I move:</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (line 16) to page 5 (line 16), omit the item, substitute:</p>- The majority voted against [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-02-16.193.1) introduced by Senator [Pauline Hanson](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/pauline_hanson) (Qld), which means they were unsuccessful.
- ### What were the amendments?
- Senator Hanson [explained that](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-02-16.193.1):
- > *... at present we still have five former prime ministers on the taxpayer payroll. I am moving amendments here to address the gold leaf that they and their spouses have for their travel...*
- > *... I believe that if we are going to ask the people of Australia to pull their belts in and we are going to take money out of their pockets or pull back on essential services for them then we as leaders of this nation should show by example.*
<p class="italic">3 Section 3</p><p class="italic">Repeal the section, substitute:</p><p class="italic">3 Simplified outline of this Act</p><ul></ul><ul></ul><p class="italic">(a) there are limits on when a person must have entered Parliament, and when a person must have satisfied the qualifying period and retired from the Parliament, in order to become the holder of a Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement; and</p><p class="italic">(b) a Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement expires after a limited period.</p><ul></ul><ul><i>Crimes (Superannuation Benefits) Act 1989</i></ul><ul><i>Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Act 2017</i></ul><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (line 25), omit "the Prime Minister or".</p><p class="italic">(3) Schedule 1, item 10, page 7 (lines 9 and 10), omit ", other than to members who become Prime Minister".</p><p class="italic">(5) Schedule 1, item 12, page 7 (lines 22 to 24), omit ", unless the person is the Prime Minister, or a former Prime Minister, when he or she retires".</p><p class="italic">(6) Schedule 1, item 12, page 7 (lines 29 to 31), omit ", unless the person is the Prime Minister, or a former Prime Minister, when he or she retires".</p><p class="italic">(7) Schedule 1, item 12, page 8 (lines 1 and 2), omit "(other than for former Prime Ministers)".</p><p class="italic">(8) Schedule 1, item 12, page 8 (lines 3 to 12), omit subsection 4C(1), substitute:</p><p class="italic"> <i>Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement expires in accordance with this section</i></p><p class="italic">(1) If a person is a holder of a Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement on 13 May 2014, or becomes a holder of a Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement after that day, the person's Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement expires in accordance with this section.</p><p class="italic">(9) Schedule 1, item 12, page 8 (line 18), omit "subject to subsection (3),".</p><p class="italic">(10) Schedule 1, item 12, page 8 (lines 25 and 26), omit subsection 4C(3).</p><p class="italic">(11) Schedule 1, item 12, page 8 (lines 33 and 34), omit "but is not a former Prime Minister".</p><p class="italic">(12) Schedule 1, item 12, page 9 (line 7), omit "a former Prime Minister or".</p><p class="italic">(13) Schedule 1, item 12, page 9 (lines 16 and 17), omit "but is not a former Prime Minister".</p><p class="italic">(14) Schedule 1, item 12, page 9 (line 32), omit "a former Prime Minister or".</p><p class="italic">(15) Schedule 1, items 13 and 14, page 10 (lines 13 to 19), omit the items, substitute:</p><p class="italic">13 Section 9 (heading)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the heading, substitute:</p><p class="italic">9 When return trip is in a year</p><p class="italic">13A Subsection 9(1) (heading)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the heading.</p><p class="italic">13B Subsection 9(1)</p><p class="italic">Omit "(1)".</p><p class="italic">13C Subsections 9(2), (3) and (4)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the subsections.</p><p class="italic">14 Sections 9A and 9B</p><p class="italic">Repeal the sections.</p><p class="italic">(16) Schedule 1, items 16 and 17, page 10 (lines 23 to 28), omit the items, substitute:</p><p class="italic">16 Subsection 10(1) (table items 2 and 3)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the items.</p><p class="italic">17 Subsection 10(3)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the subsection.</p><p class="italic">(17) Schedule 1, item 20, page 11 (lines 3 to 17), omit the item, substitute:</p><p class="italic">20 Section 13</p><p class="italic">Omit:</p><p class="italic">(b) a pro-rata adjustment where a person becomes the spouse or de facto partner of a former member or member during a year;</p><p class="italic">(c) a pro-rata adjustment where, during a year, a member satisfies the relevant qualifying period for the issue of a Life Gold Pass.</p><p class="italic">substitute:</p><p class="italic">(b) a pro-rata adjustment where the maximum term of a Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement under subsection 4C(6) or (7) will end during a year.</p><p class="italic">(18) Schedule 1, item 21, page 11 (lines 20 and 21), omit "<i>, or former Prime Minister nominates spouse or</i><i>de</i><i>facto</i><i>partner,</i>".</p><p class="italic">(19) Schedule 1, items 23 and 24, page 12 (lines 1 to 6), omit the items, substitute:</p><p class="italic">23 Subsection 14(1) (table item 2)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the item.</p><p class="italic">(20) Schedule 1, item 26, page 12 (lines 9 to 24), omit the item, substitute:</p><p class="italic">26 Subsection 14(2)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the subsection, substitute:</p><p class="italic">(2) The number of domestic return trips for the purposes of the table in subsection (1) is the number of trips worked out using the formula in subsection (2A).</p><p class="italic">26A Subsection 14(2A)</p><p class="italic">Omit "paragraph (2) (a)", substitute "subsection (2)".</p><p class="italic">(21) Schedule 1, item 28, page 13 (lines 18 to 31), omit subsection 18(3), substitute:</p><p class="italic"> <i>Interaction between items</i> <i>1 and 2 of the table in subsection</i> <i>(2) and the rules in section</i> <i>4C about expiry of Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlements</i></p><p class="italic">(3) If item 2 of the table in subsection (2) applies (whether or not item 1 also applies), then nothing in either of those items is to be taken to result in:</p><p class="italic">(a) the person resuming being the holder of a Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement; or</p><p class="italic">(b) requiring a Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement to be restored to the person;</p><p class="italic">on the revocation of the order if the revocation takes effect after the nominal expiry time for the Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement that the person held when the order was made.</p><p class="italic">(22) Schedule 1, items 29 to 31, page 14 (lines 5 to 18), omit the items, substitute:</p><p class="italic">29 Paragraph 21(a)</p><p class="italic">Omit ", or the surviving spouse or de facto partner of a former member,".</p><p class="italic">30 Section 21</p><p class="italic">Omit ", or the surviving spouse or de facto partner, as the case may be," (wherever occurring).</p><p class="italic">31 Section 22</p><p class="italic">Repeal the section.</p><p class="italic">(23) Schedule 1, items 33 and 34, page 14 (lines 21 to 26), omit the items, substitute:</p><p class="italic">33 Subsection 28(2)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the subsection.</p><p class="italic">34 Paragraph 29(1 ) ( b)</p><p class="italic">Omit ", or the person's spouse or de facto partner,".</p><p class="italic">34A Subsection 29(1)</p><p class="italic">Omit "traveller" (wherever occurring), substitute "person".</p><p class="italic">(24) Schedule 1, item 39, page 18 (after line 20), at the end of the item, add:</p><p class="italic">(5) Despite any other provision of this Act or the amended Act, if a travel entitlement of a former Prime Minister would (but for this subitem) expire at a time before the commencement of section 1 of the <i>Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Act 2017</i>, the travel entitlement is instead taken to expire at that time.</p><p class="italic">(25) Schedule 2, page 20 (after line 2), after item 5, insert:</p><p class="italic">5A After section 5</p><p class="italic">Insert:</p><p class="italic">5A Retired former Prime Ministers</p><p class="italic">(1) The Commonwealth must not provide any benefits under any administrative scheme to a person because the person is a retired former Prime Minister.</p><p class="italic">(2) To avoid doubt, subsection (1) does not apply to superannuation.</p><p>Regarding parliamentary entitlements, at present we still have five former prime ministers on the taxpayer payroll. I am moving amendments here to address the gold leaf that they and their spouses have for their travel. From 1 January to 30 June 2016, which is a matter of six months, former Prime Minister Gillard cost approximately $50,000; Mr Hawke, $62,000; Mr Howard, $112,000; Mr Keating, $62,000; and Mr Rudd, $63,000. That was for six months. The cost to the taxpayers is a drain. Former Prime Minister Rudd has an office in the same building as mine. I have never seen him there. I just think it is an expense that the taxpayers cannot afford any longer. A lot of these men are actually quite well-to-do and receive entitlements through their superannuation. I just do not believe that they should be afforded these entitlements, especially when Mr Hawke has been out of office for I think 26 years or so, and Mr Keating for around 21 years and Mr Howard 10 years. I think there has to be a limit to it. When Mr Macdonald said earlier that the people in this place now have a pay rise—</p><p>The CHAIR: Senator Hanson, please refer to senators by their correct title. It is 'Senator Macdonald'.</p><p>Sorry—Senator Macdonald—he made reference to the wages of former senators in this place and now we are receiving approximately $200,000 a year. The gold leaf that they were going to get—the travel entitlements—was all part of it. I have to say, when I first came into this parliament, in 1996, the wages at that time were about $85,000 a year. I did not come into this place thinking of the lurks and perks or that I was going to get a gold leaf. That was not a part of it. I ran for parliament to be a representative for the people. The wage was not a carrot, not the reason I am here, and I do not believe it should be. Things have changed over the years, and I believe that if we are going to ask the people of Australia to pull their belts in and we are going to take money out of their pockets or pull back on essential services for them then we as leaders of this nation should show by example.</p><p>As I said, former prime ministers are quite well-to-do. Some of them are multimillionaires, if not all of them. And I do not believe that after years of not being in service—and a lot of them were actually thrown out by the people, because they did not want them there any longer, and the state this country was put in under two of them especially, former Prime Minister Gillard and former Prime Minister Rudd, who have a lot to answer for in terms of the economy of this country.</p> <p class="speaker">Don Farrell</p><p>I have not got up in respect of every amendment, but I thought I would make my general comments about all of them, because they are all relatively similar and all deal with relatively similar issues. In respect of removing the entitlement of former prime ministers, the opposition will not support any of the amendments in relation to that. I think there are differences between retired prime ministers and all other federal politicians. I think they have a range of responsibilities that other politicians do not have, and I think we should recognise that by continuing to provide them with the Gold Pass.</p><p>I cannot leave Senator Macdonald's comments of denigration of former Prime Minister Gillard without responding. I think they were tasteless comments by Senator Macdonald. And I think as time goes by Prime Minister Gillard's term will be seen as a golden era for Australian prime ministers and we will look back fondly to her time as not only the first Australian female Prime Minister but a terrific person to govern this country. I think it would be fair to say that she was the only person in the parliament before last who could have governed this country for those three years. And, as I said, I think the comments regarding her time as Prime Minister have been tasteless.</p><p>The opposition is not supporting any of the amendments, so I will not need to jump up again in respect of the remaining ones. We have a set of changes that I think increase the transparency and the responsibility of members of parliament in respect of a range of work expenses. I think they need to be looked at collectively. We have a bill that deals with the Gold Pass. We have a new body that is going to set up to administer work expenses for members of parliament. And shortly, I expect, we will receive a further set of legislation to deal with the changes that the so-called Conde report has dealt with. Collectively it is the hope of the opposition that these will deal with all of the issues that have been raised, both by the events surrounding former Speaker Bishop and the more recent events surrounding Minister Ley. We have encouraged the government—in fact, I think it would be fair to say that we have pushed the government—to deal with these issues. And we believe that when all of these pieces of legislation are passed then collectively they will do what is intended—that is, restore the faith of members of the public in the roles and responsibilities of members of parliament. As I said, the opposition will not be supporting any of the amendments to either this legislation or the next piece of legislation.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>As I outlined earlier, Senator Hanson, the government does not support the proposed changes to impact on former prime ministers. I will not again go through in great detail the examples of public service or the rationale for that, but the government strongly believes that they have a unique place, and I think we can refer to that with the examples I used before. With respect to a couple of the comments that Senator Macdonald made earlier, retrospective legislation is not completely unknown to this place. This is not the first piece in my 8½ years in parliament. It is reserved for exceptional circumstances, and, as I have explained, the decision that the government and I took over summer to abolish the Life Gold Pass immediately is an example of rebuilding public trust in the expenses framework, of which the next bill is also a very important part.</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>I do not really want to delay the chamber any further—I am conscious that many senators want to escape and go back to their homes—but I cannot let Senator Gallagher's response about Ms Gillard go unchallenged.</p> <p class="speaker">Don Farrell</p><p>Point of order!</p><p>The CHAIR: That is correct; it was Senator Farrell.</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>That is an unforgivable error that I do apologise for, Senator Farrell. History will show what Ms Gillard did or did not do.</p> <p class="speaker">Don Farrell</p><p>I agree with that.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|