|
senate vote 2017-02-16#13
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2017-02-24 21:29:14
|
Title
Bills — Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2017; in Committee- Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 - in Committee - Increase penalty loading
Description
- The majority voted against an amendment introduced by Senator [Nick Xenophon](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/nick_xenophon) (SA), which means it was unsuccessful.
- There was one rebel voter in this division: Liberal Senator [Ian Macdonald](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/ian_macdonald) (Qld). Senator Macdonald voted Yes against the majority of the Liberal Party. Voting against your own party is know as [crossing the floor](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/crossing-the-floor.html).
- ### What was the amendment?
- Senator Xenophon explained that:
- > *This amendment provides for a loading. Then, if you breach the rules, if you make a claim for a payment that you should not have made, you are liable to pay at least double the amount to which the section applies ...*
- > *... In other words, if you are a repeat offender, you pay more, just like other laws that are enforced, whether it is traffic offences or other offences. If you are a repeat offender, you should pay more ...*
- > *...The current penalty of a 25 per cent loading is akin to being slapped with a piece of wet lettuce leaf. It is not effective. There is nothing like a financial penalty, given human nature, to keep people on their toes to make sure they comply. That is why this amendment is so important.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Schedule 2, item 7, page 23 (lines 31 to 33), omit subsection 10C(4), substitute:*
- > *(4) The recipient is liable to pay the Commonwealth, by way of penalty for the contravention of section 7A (the current contravention), an amount equal to:*
- > *(a) if the recipient has not contravened that section, or has contravened that section once, during the period of 12 months immediately preceding the day on which the claim to which the current contravention relates is made—200% of the amount to which this section applies; or*
> *(b) if the recipient has contravened that section 2 or more times during the period of 12 months immediately preceding the day on which the claim to which the current contravention relates is made—400% of the amount to which this section applies.*- > *(b) if the recipient has contravened that section 2 or more times during the period of 12 months immediately preceding the day on which the claim to which the current contravention relates is made—400% of the amount to which this section applies.*
|
|
senate vote 2017-02-16#13
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2017-02-24 21:28:21
|
Title
Description
<p class="speaker">Nick Xenophon</p><p>I move amendment (1) on sheet 8077, standing in my name:</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 2, item 7, page 23 (lines 31 to 33), omit subsection 10C(4), substitute:</p>- The majority voted against an amendment introduced by Senator [Nick Xenophon](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/nick_xenophon) (SA), which means it was unsuccessful.
- There was one rebel voter in this division: Liberal Senator [Ian Macdonald](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/ian_macdonald) (Qld). Senator Macdonald voted Yes against the majority of the Liberal Party. Voting against your own party is know as [crossing the floor](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/crossing-the-floor.html).
- ### What was the amendment?
- Senator Xenophon explained that:
- > *This amendment provides for a loading. Then, if you breach the rules, if you make a claim for a payment that you should not have made, you are liable to pay at least double the amount to which the section applies ...*
- > *... In other words, if you are a repeat offender, you pay more, just like other laws that are enforced, whether it is traffic offences or other offences. If you are a repeat offender, you should pay more ...*
- > *...The current penalty of a 25 per cent loading is akin to being slapped with a piece of wet lettuce leaf. It is not effective. There is nothing like a financial penalty, given human nature, to keep people on their toes to make sure they comply. That is why this amendment is so important.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Schedule 2, item 7, page 23 (lines 31 to 33), omit subsection 10C(4), substitute:*
- > *(4) The recipient is liable to pay the Commonwealth, by way of penalty for the contravention of section 7A (the current contravention), an amount equal to:*
- > *(a) if the recipient has not contravened that section, or has contravened that section once, during the period of 12 months immediately preceding the day on which the claim to which the current contravention relates is made—200% of the amount to which this section applies; or*
- > *(b) if the recipient has contravened that section 2 or more times during the period of 12 months immediately preceding the day on which the claim to which the current contravention relates is made—400% of the amount to which this section applies.*
<p class="italic">(4) The recipient is liable to pay the Commonwealth, by way of penalty for the contravention of section 7A (the <i>current contravention</i>), an amount equal to:</p><p class="italic">(a) if the recipient has not contravened that section, or has contravened that section once, during the period of 12 months immediately preceding the day on which the claim to which the current contravention relates is made—200% of the amount to which this section applies; or</p><p class="italic">(b) if the recipient has contravened that section 2 or more times during the period of 12 months immediately preceding the day on which the claim to which the current contravention relates is made—400% of the amount to which this section applies.</p><p>This amendment, which I am moving on behalf of my colleagues, was also moved in the other place by my colleague Rebekha Sharkie, the member for Mayo. This is about giving the legislation some teeth, some effectiveness, because unless you have an adequate penalty regime it raises real issues about whether this will have real teeth and do what it is meant to do in terms of ensuring compliance with the rules.</p><p>This amendment provides for a loading. Then, if you breach the rules, if you make a claim for a payment that you should not have made, you are liable to pay at least double the amount to which the section applies. This is in subsection (b) of the amendment:</p><p class="italic">… if the recipient has contravened that section 2 or more times during the period of 12 months immediately preceding the day on which the claim to which the current contravention relates is made—400% of the amount to which this section applies—</p><p>is payable. In other words, if you are a repeat offender, you pay more, just like other laws that are enforced, whether it is traffic offences or other offences. If you are a repeat offender, you should pay more. There is nothing like having a financial penalty to keep all politicians on their toes in order to ensure they comply with the rules.</p><p>Indeed, given what is happening with the legislation that we will shortly be debating, I presume, to do with an expenses tribunal which allows for determinations to be made or advice to be sought in respect of expenses, there ought to be no excuse for members of parliament to make a wrongful claim. That is why this amendment is about giving the legislation real teeth. The current penalty of a 25 per cent loading is akin to being slapped with a piece of wet lettuce leaf. It is not effective. There is nothing like a financial penalty, given human nature, to keep people on their toes to make sure they comply. That is why this amendment is so important.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>I will be brief in my response. Senator Xenophon rightly gives credit to the fact that this bill needs to be seen as part of a wider suite of measures. It is the first of several bills coming before parliament, the second of which will be coming forward later this evening. This bill includes a 25 per cent penalty. I think it is important to take note, at this point, of the thousands of claims that are made for flights, for allowance to travel and for other expenses that are conducted by members of parliament in their work. We have to recognise that this is a large country. This is not the United States. We do not want to move our members of parliament and our families to Washington or, in this case, to Canberra, and we do want our members of parliament to be accessible to their communities and, in the case of the Senate, accessible to their state.</p><p>I actually think that, in the context of the scale of the work that the parliament undertakes and the scale of the travel, it is important that we keep the number of examples that Senator Xenophon is referring to in context. It is important that there be a penalty provision, but the overwhelming number of claims made is entirely appropriate. I will also say that I actually do not think—respectfully, Senator Xenophon—that the threat of a financial penalty is the largest or most important way of ensuring compliance. As I have mentioned previously and we can discuss with the next legislation, with the government's commitment and the Prime Minister's commitment to move to monthly disclosure in a more easily searchable format and in the short term to move to quarterly disclosure as opposed to six-monthly disclosure, the culture of looking for the public standard as well as the rules is actually going to be best met by that disclosure regime.</p><p>Quite frankly, I do not think that the issue of what you may call a fine or a penalty is as significant as how most people take their public reputations. I think what we will see and we have already started to see is a cultural change from what was the case decades ago, which reflects much greater transparency because we release more information than many comparable parliaments. This parliament releases a great deal more information about the expenses of its members than, as far as I am aware, any state parliament does. We release an extraordinary amount of information, and that is an observation that I think the parliament should be proud of. I think most people would value their reputation as more important than they would potentially a few hundred dollars.</p><p>So, respectfully, the government will be opposing this amendment, but I urge people to see this particular bill as part of a suite of bills that the Prime Minister has announced that are overhauling the entire system in the most substantial overhaul in decades.</p> <p class="speaker">Nick Xenophon</p><p>I thank the minister for his response. I just want to make this observation and perhaps put just one short question to the minister in relation to that. The minister acknowledges that there is a penalty, a 25 per cent penalty, for a claim. He is right that, if there is more transparency, public disclosure and, I guess, embarrassment if an MP or a senator makes a claim that is a wrongful claim, for want of a better word, that too is a sanction in itself. But I ask the minister this: does the minister concede that, where a claim has been made that ought not to have been made, there are expenses involved and there ought to be some level of user pays, in a sense, for the extra work that the department does—that public servants do—to deal with the mess of a claim? It can often be more than the 25 per cent uplift in relation to the penalty that is imposed that is contemplated at the moment.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Respectfully, Senator Xenophon, I think that is a different rationale than what you were proposing earlier, which was a penalty.</p> <p class="speaker">Nick Xenophon</p><p>It is an alternative rationale, but, the fact is that, if we have a cost—</p><p class="italic">Senator Seselja interjecting—</p><p>Whatever Senator Seselja said, I will just ignore it.</p> <p class="speaker">Zed Seselja</p><p>It was good!</p> <p class="speaker">Nick Xenophon</p><p>I am sure it was not helpful! I think we all want to get home. I think the minister's office is contemplating a 1.28 am finish, but I am sure that it will not be that. Does the minister acknowledge, though, that there are additional administrative costs involved where a claim has been made that has been a wrongful claim and that there are additional costs to the Commonwealth as a result of dealing with that? I just want to get acknowledgement of that. I will not take it any further.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Briefly, Senator Xenophon, given the sheer scale of the number of travel and expense claims that the department processes, which are in the hundreds a day, I think it would be virtually impossible to account for that in any way. But I will say that, as we move to the independent authority which we will be debating next and as we move on to future legislation that will fully implement some changes as announced by the Conde review, as Senator Farrell outlined, we do expect to see substantial efficiencies in this process as we move to a monthly disclosure regime because the process at the moment is rather antiquated and reflects very old IT that is particularly labour intensive.</p><p>The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (1) as moved by Senator Xenophon on sheet 8077 be agreed to.</p><p>Bill agreed to.</p><p>Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.</p>
|