The following is my submission on the above matter:-

I believe that this inquiry has been so poorly advertised that the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee should be directed to substantially extend the time for public submissions and that an advertising campaign be entered into to make the public aware of the issue and the inquiry. Unless several hundred submissions are received on an issue of this nature then the process is flawed and should be voided.

While it is acknowledged that duties and associations continue after a period of service as an elected representative there has to be cut of at some point. The proposed system continues it beyond death and that has to be a concern. At some time the association, within life, must become so remote that any expense to the taxpayer would be difficult to justify.

Parliamentarians have a far better superannuation scheme than the rest of the community and are not exactly cut adrift on the termination of their service.

Fairly obviously past Prime Ministers and for that matter Ministers have a far wider physical area of interest than would a backbencher. So some discrimination in this regard is justifiable.

However the proposed concessions are far too generous and would not be matched in any area of private enterprise. There also needs to be far greater degree accountability with regard to the expenditure.

I would therefore propose that for Prime Ministers and members of the Cabinet, the Gold Pass period be restricted to a period of five years. For backbenchers the period be restricted to two years with a decreasing number of trips per year. Twenty-five trips a year for the first year may be generous but for the fifth year five trips would be more like an acceptable concession.

The class of travel proposed need not be altered.

In the event that a former member needed to travel after the cut off period then his travel, or the travel of a surving spouse’s costs should be sponsored by a sitting member. Any sponsored travel cost should be accounted for by allocating the expense to the sponsor’s annual expense account, or be within the expense limitations of the sponsor.

By federal standards the $2m spent yearly on this type of expense is not large but the extent of the expense is not the issue.

It would be difficult for a Government to insist on higher corporate standards and accountability for officers of public companies while at the same time being themselves involved in practices that are not generally considered to be fair and reasonable.

I believe that the substance of this submission is fair and reasonable and its implementation would leave the Parliament is a better light.

Mr. H. A. Bonney,

14 Lomatta St.,

The Gap Q 4061

(07) 3300 2251