The Committee for the Review of Parliamentary Entitlements, a body under the auspices of the Australian Department of Finance & Deregulation, has released a 147 page report [PDF] on investigation over the past year. The report, which follows criticism by the Australian National Audit Office, proposes changes "to improve the parliamentary entitlements framework.
The report comments that the existing arrangements are "an extraordinarily complex plethora of entitlements containing myriad ambiguities". The arrangements encompass at least 11 statutes, three sets of regulations, six Remuneration Tribunal determinations and reports, 21 determinations made by the Special Minister of State under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (Cth) and nine formal procedural rules and sets of guidelines made by the minister to give effect to Remuneration Tribunal determinations.
The Committee states that -
This mix of primary legislation, regulations, determinations, procedural rules, executive decisions, accepted conventions and administrative practices has resulted over the years in inconsistency, ambiguity, duplication, overlap, redundancy and gaps in the framework. To illustrate with just one example: telephone services for senators and members are provided through seven overlapping entitlements under four heads of authority.It goes on to call for greater simplicity and transparency, commenting that -
No-one should be required to work within such a complex system; neither senators and members nor those required to administer the entitlements. [Our] recommendations aim to ensure that senators and members are given relevant and adequate resources to do their jobs within a simplified, transparent and accountable framework that has regard to contemporary community standards. In making its recommendations, the committee has endeavoured to strike a balance between the needs of parliamentarians and public confidence in the appropriateness of the level of support provided to elected representatives.The system of entitlements derives from sources that over time have become less transparent as the number and diversity of benefits provided to senators and members have increased. The Committee suggests that it is important to "separate remuneration from the tools of trade or means by which senators and members carry out their roles (for example, office facilities and transport)", with the former being determined by the Remuneration Tribunal and the latter covered by a single piece of legislation (administered by the Special Minister of State). In a brave recommendation it argues that the Remuneration Tribunal - currently with only an advisory role regarding the base salary of MPs - should be given back the power to determine parliamentary salaries directly, with removal of the legislature’s right of disallowance by means of a majority resolution in either house. The 'tools of trade matters' would appropriately be determined by the Minister, drawing on advice from an independent advisory committee. All salary matters should be determined independently by the Remuneration Tribunal following a work value assessment, with all entitlements providing a personal benefit (such as the electorate allowance, initially intended to cover items such as additional accommodation expenses, donations and subscriptions to associations) being considered a part of the salary and taxed accordingly.
The Committee also noted "strong public sentiment that publicly funded post-retirement travel ... is a benefit not in keeping with community standards" and should be abolished. It noted the lack of workers’ compensation insurance for MPs, "a gap in the existing framework that is out of step with community standards".
In discussing governance the report endorses the recent decision to publish details of all expenditure on parliamentary entitlements administered by Department of Finance & Deregulation, publication that should be underpinned with a legislative basis. MPs should be required to provide a link on their official parliamentary website to individual expenditure reports.
Noting dissiculty in the articulation and application of statutory definitions of 'parliamentarians’ business' - - ie activities in relation to their responsibilities as members of the legislature - the committee suggested that -
the government identify activities that, regardless of the category of business in which they might fall, would be publicly funded (for example participating in public debate, attending meetings and representing the interests of constituents), or would not (for example producing and distributing how-to-vote material). Activities that were not identified would not be publicly funded.Restrictions would be placed on some entitlements during election campaigns, with for example access to the printing and communications entitlement ceasing on announcement of the election date and restrictions on payment of travelling allowance to personal staff working at a political party headquarters in the lead-up to elections.
MPs should given an option to take an allowance in lieu of a private-plated vehicle and receive a broad transport budget allocation to cover all other forms of car transport (eg taxis and hire cars) rather than "the current set of individual, rigid entitlements". The overseas travel entitlement for the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition should be increased (updated to the equivalent of one round-the-world business class trip each year while in office), with "the provision of modest information resources at Parliament House" and consideration of additional remuneration for shadow ministers. Employment of family members by MPs should be made more transparent.
Given introduction in 2008 of a code of conduct for ministerial staff, the Committee recommends a requirement for non-ministerial MOP(S) Act employees to declare in writing the nature of any secondary employment so that the employing senators and members can judge if there are conflicts of interest. A more useful requirement would involve publication of those interests.
