Mr MELHAM (4:06 PM) —The Members of Parliament (Life Gold Pass) Bill 2002 establishes a uniform set of arrangements for all life gold pass holders, their spouses, the widows or widowers of deceased pass holders, and spouses of sitting members who have qualified for a life gold pass. The bill proposes annual limits to travel entitlements for all eligible pass holders for the first time. The bill also includes a forfeiture provision linked to the forfeiture of superannuation benefits in the case of a conviction for a `corruption offence' as defined in the Crimes (Superannuation Benefits) Act 1989. This provision will apply to all life gold pass holders and former parliamentarians who qualify for severance travel benefits.

The limits imposed by the bill on travel entitlements are as follows: for eligible former Prime Ministers and their spouses, up to 40 return trips per annum; for widows and widowers of eligible former Prime Ministers, up to 10 trips per annum for the first five years commencing on the death of the former Prime Minister and five trips per annum thereafter; for all eligible former members and their spouses, up to 25 return trips per annum; for spouses of eligible sitting members, spouses of the Prime Minister are entitled to 40 domestic return trips per annum and all other members' spouses are entitled to 25 domestic return trips per annum to join or accompany their spouses; and for widows and widowers of eligible former members who died after the commencement of the act, up to 10 domestic return trips in the first year following the member's death and up to five domestic return trips in the next year, after which the entitlement ceases.

The bill also includes a range of provisions aimed at clarifying and enhancing the arrangements relating to life gold pass travel. These include clear statements concerning: the type of travel that may be undertaken; definitions—for example, definition of a return trip—how to treat stopovers; and what constitutes a commercial purpose. The measures setting limits to entitlements were foreshadowed in the Prime Minister's statement on parliamentary entitlements of 27 September 2001 and flowed from the findings of the Auditor-General's report on parliamentarians' entitlements No. 5 of 2001-02.

The opposition concur with the government's view that the current life gold pass entitlements are overly generous and out of step with community views. The new limits proposed by this bill are justified and have the opposition's support. One concern the opposition do have with the bill is its use of the antiquated definition of spouse as `legally married'. We consider it more appropriate that the definition of spouse include de facto spouses and note that this has been the accepted definition in the Parliamentary Entitlements Act since its passage in 1990. I foreshadow that the opposition will be either supporting an appropriate government amendment to this effect, should one be forthcoming, or moving an amendment ourselves when the bill is dealt with in the Senate.

Having expressed the opposition's position in relation to this bill, I would like to conclude my remarks with some personal observations. The life gold pass entitlement began as long ago as 1918. Over the decades that followed the introduction of this arrangement, the qualification periods for this unique privilege were progressively lowered and the entitlement broadened. Prior to 1993, the life gold pass entitled pass holders to unlimited travel at government expense for noncommercial purposes. Following criticism of the open-ended nature of the entitlements, the Remuneration Tribunal reduced the entitlement to a maximum of 25 per annum, effective from 1 January 1994. The bill further tightens the entitlement, and this is a welcome measure.

But the truth is the life gold pass is something that belongs to a bygone age—an age when our national legislature sat on the comfortable leather couches of Old Parliament House. This form of entitlement is now inappropriate. Retention of a life gold pass is something that contributes to the low esteem in which our constituents so often hold members of this parliament. This parliament would be well advised to dispense with this anachronistic privilege; the sooner we do so, the better.