Former politicians are in the news in a way that shows that a major overhaul of the remuneration of all federal MPs should now be a priority.
The story, splashed over the front page of The Sydney Morning Herald on successive days last week, was about the travel expenses incurred by former MPs under the Life Gold Pass scheme.
The newspaper revealed, using documents obtained from the Department of Finance under Freedom of Information requests, that over an eight-year period from January 2001 until June 2008, 272 former federal politicians or their widows took over 20,000 free flights to the value of $8.3million.
The scheme was created for retired federal MPs who served 20 years in Parliament or six years as a minister. Those who fall short of these requirements are eligible for up to five years. Former prime ministers are covered under a different scheme. The scheme provides for free business or first-class air travel within Australia with their spouse. There is no frequency limit imposed on those who retired before 1994. The limit for those who retired since is 25 return flights a year. Even that is very generous. The flights can be used for holidays or other personal travel but not for business purposes.
The personal details of travel by former MPs are of interest only in so far as they illuminate general issues. Indeed those who travel more frequently may turn out to be the more deserving.
The newspaper has raised some of these general issues, but by no means all of them, while leaving no doubt that it sees the whole scheme as a gravy train.
The top 10 among former MPs under this scheme include former Nationals leader Ian Sinclair (701 flights), Labor minister Margaret Reynolds (427), Labor minister Gordon Bilney (362), Labor minister Barry Jones (361), Labor/Independent backbencher Graeme Campbell (350), Nationals backbencher Noel Hicks (336), Liberal minister Michael Wooldridge (326), Labor minister Michael Tate (309), Liberal minister Fred Chaney (303), Nationals leader and deputy prime minister Tim Fischer (289), Labor minister John Dawkins (271) and Liberal backbencher Wal Fife (269).
There is a hint of regional variation given the high number of rural and regional (Western Australia and Tasmania) former MPs near the top of the list.
Of these at least four Sinclair, Jones, Chaney and Fischer are recognised by the community as being among those who are called on by all sorts of organisations. They can defend their expenditure on grounds of the common good. Others in the top 10, such as Reynolds and Tate, may be in the same boat. But that it is hardly a defence of the scheme because it is indiscriminate and not monitored in any way.
It just means that the cost, if justified, is transferred from private organisations or the Government to the general taxpayer.
There also seems little doubt that many of the trips are about the private rather than the public good. These MPs are by no means old-age pensioners just taking a few well-earned holidays in the twilight of their lives. With MPs entering and leaving politics earlier, some of those on the list have decades of happy free travelling to look forward to.
The scheme is excessively generous, even if it is to continue as a type of gold watch on retirement. The various justifications offered, such as that it is instead of a decent salary or that it is a mark of respect and gratitude for a lifetime of public service, are confused at best.
On this reasoning, many will call for the total abolition of the scheme. It certainly should be reviewed as it brings public life into disrepute.
If a narrow review is in order then there are many ways to rein in expenditure while maintaining the spirit of the scheme. These include applying the 1994 restrictions retrospectively to all retired MPs, reducing the travel from first-class and business to economy class, abolishing or severely restricting free spouse travel, introducing a cap on expenditure a year by any MP (say to $5000 a year, still generous if travel is economy class). Some rural and regional preference might still be retained to recognise this genuine issue or even a means test.
Associated with these new limits might be a transparent public good scheme to which former MPs could apply for special consideration. Each claim on expenditure for travel for a charitable purpose under this scheme would have to be seriously justified.
Beyond this particular scheme, however, the time has now come for a wider investigation of the total remuneration and reward of federal politicians. Such an inquiry should be public and placed in the hands of a fresh panel of experts drawn equally from the public, NGO and private sectors.
The terms of reference should be to investigate the justification and scope of all existing pay and conditions. These would include salary, electorate allowances, travel and accommodation allowances as well as post-retirement superannuation and other benefits such as free travel.
A good start would be an issues paper that included a compilation in a single document of all terms and conditions available to MPs during and after their parliamentary service. To my knowledge such a public document does not exist.
The inquiry should dig very deeply not just into the mechanics of each aspect of the conditions of service but also, most importantly, into their philosophical justification.
Are they part of a recruitment package to attract future MPs or are they to reward current and retired MPs or to allow them to serve their constituents better?
John Warhurst is an adjunct professor of political science at the Australian National University.
John.Warhurst@anu.e du.au
Email a friend