tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/parliamentary-entitlements-18704/articlesParliamentary entitlements – The Conversation2019-01-08T02:06:12Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1094252019-01-08T02:06:12Z2019-01-08T02:06:12ZParliamentary entitlements: what’s allowed and what’s not?<p>Queensland Senator Fraser Anning has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jan/06/scott-morrison-criticises-ugly-racial-protests-but-fails-to-condemn-fraser-anning">used taxpayer funds</a> to pay for flights to Melbourne to attend a protest with far-right extremists. </p>
<p>Anning’s use of taxpayer money for what many argue to be inappropriate reasons is another in a line of Australian MPs using their parliamentary entitlements in ways that have riled the public.</p>
<p>Who can forget former Speaker Bronwyn Bishop’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/choppergate-no-more-what-the-review-of-politicians-entitlements-will-mean-56196">helicopter ride</a> to attend a party fundraiser, which in the end cost her the job.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/bronwyn-bishop-finally-resigns-as-speaker-45559">Bronwyn Bishop finally resigns as Speaker</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Such incidents have fuelled a public perception parliamentary entitlements are excessively generous. Fraser Anning defended his attendance at the rally, saying: “It’s official business. I am a senator. I didn’t go there for a picnic.”</p>
<p>Ministers do need to travel to perform official duties relating to their portfolio. MPs have to represent their electorate, as well as perform their parliamentary duties in Canberra. Public funds should be provided to allow them to carry out their duties effectively and without impediment. </p>
<p>But some MPs have been accused of rorting the system with exorbitant or improper entitlements claims. So, what are parliamentarians entitled to claim?</p>
<h2>Official business, representing value for money</h2>
<p>Above their base salary, politicians can claim certain additional “entitlements”, which are better conceived of as work expenses and allowances.</p>
<p>Bishop’s so-called “choppergate” scandal <a href="https://www.finance.gov.au/publications/parliamentary-entitlements-review/">led to a review</a> of the parliamentary entitlements system and, consequently, the establishment of the <a href="https://www.ipea.gov.au/legislative-framework">Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority</a> in July 2017. The Authority is responsible for monitoring and reviewing the travel and other parliamentary entitlements.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.ipea.gov.au/legislative-framework">new parliamentary expenses framework</a> is based on two main principles. </p>
<p>First, MPs are able to claim reasonable costs incurred for the dominant purpose of conducting parliamentary business. MPs must not seek to disguise as official business an activity whose dominant purpose is personal or commercial. </p>
<p>Secondly, the costs incurred must represent value for money. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/turnbull-makes-a-good-start-on-expenses-but-needs-to-go-further-71403">Turnbull makes a good start on expenses, but needs to go further</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Under <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017A00037">current legislation</a>, MPs can claim for domestic travel expenses, including the cost of commercial flights, cars and private vehicles for travel within Australia. With prime ministerial approval, ministers can also claim overseas travel costs, as well as the travel costs of their staff and spouse. </p>
<p>These entitlements are limited to travel relating to parliamentary or electorate duties, or party political duties connected with their membership of parliament. </p>
<p>Under “family reunion” benefits, MPs’ spouses and dependants may join them in Australia several times a year. </p>
<p>MPs are also entitled to claim a travel allowance for each night they have to stay away from home for parliamentary business. But there is a ten night limit for party political duties outside Canberra and electorate duties outside the MP’s electorate.</p>
<h2>What falls under the rules?</h2>
<ul>
<li>Flights to Canberra and accommodation costs during the parliamentary sitting period</li>
<li>an MP’s travel within their electorate to meet with constituents</li>
<li>overseas flights by a minister on portfolio business that have been approved by the prime minister</li>
<li>flights interstate to attend a formal meeting of the political party or a national, state or territory party conference. These are political party expenses connected to the MP’s role in parliament<br></li>
<li>travel by ministers as part of their portfolio duties, such as travel interstate by the minister for Education to negotiate with the states on education policy. </li>
</ul>
<h2>What doesn’t fall under the rules?</h2>
<ul>
<li>Flights interstate to attend a friend’s wedding. This is a personal expense and not parliamentary business</li>
<li>a private jet chartered to fly to Canberra for a parliamentary sitting. Under the new principles, this is probably not value for money for a scheduled event</li>
<li>flights interstate to attend a party fundraiser. This is a party political expense unconnected to a MP’s role in parliament.</li>
</ul>
<h2>What about the grey areas?</h2>
<p>It becomes murky when politicians have mixed motives in undertaking travel. For instance, former health minister Sussan Ley <a href="https://theconversation.com/sussan-ley-and-the-gold-coast-apartment-murky-rules-mean-age-of-entitlement-isnt-over-for-mps-70993">travelled</a> to Queensland to make an announcement at a breast cancer clinic as part of her ministerial role. During her trip, she bought a A$795,000 apartment at an auction from a Liberal donor, which was said to be “neither planned nor anticipated”. </p>
<p>In such cases, politicians tend to argue their travel was for the dominant purpose of undertaking official business and their private affairs are incidental to this.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/sussan-ley-and-the-gold-coast-apartment-murky-rules-mean-age-of-entitlement-isnt-over-for-mps-70993">Sussan Ley and the Gold Coast apartment: murky rules mean age of entitlement isn't over for MPs</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>While such situations may comply with the rules, they tend to fail the so-called “pub test”. Although she didn’t break any rules, the public outcry led to Sussan Ley resigning from her role as the health, aged care and sport minister. Her statement <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-13/sussan-ley-tenders-resignation-parliament-expenses-scandal/8180602">read</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Whilst I have attempted at all times to be meticulous with rules and standards, I accept community annoyance, even anger, with politicians’ entitlements demands a response.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>What happens when rules are breached?</h2>
<p>So, is Fraser Anning’s trip to Melbourne for the weekend protests within the rules?</p>
<p>It depends on whether the trip was for the dominant purpose of parliamentary business. Anning’s electorate is in Queensland, which means there is less justification he was representing his electorate by travelling to Melbourne. </p>
<p>Anning’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jan/06/scott-morrison-criticises-ugly-racial-protests-but-fails-to-condemn-fraser-anning">argument</a> was that Queensland was experiencing similar issues with crime gangs as Victoria.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1081850765948284929"}"></div></p>
<p>However, attending a protest in Melbourne about purported Victorian crime issues would seem to have, at best, a tenuous connection with his duties of representing the Queensland electorate.</p>
<p>The Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority can make a ruling on whether the claim was in accordance with the law. If the claim contravenes the law, the MP has to repay the money. Where the MP has not repaid their claim within 28 days, an additional 25% penalty may apply to the debt.</p>
<p>As holders of high elected office, MPs are the custodians of public trust. But some MPs have made claims from taxpayer funds that are out of step with public expectations. It is incumbent on the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority to carefully police such claims.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/109425/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Yee-Fui Ng does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In the last few years, some MPs have made extravagant claims on their parliamentary entitlements. So, what are they actually allowed to use the money for?Yee-Fui Ng, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/712732017-01-13T05:27:42Z2017-01-13T05:27:42ZLey goes, and Turnbull’s reforms pave way for fewer expenses scandals<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152616/original/image-20170113-11172-1g4kndg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Sussan Ley maintains that her entitlement claims were within the rules.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Sussan Ley has <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-13/sussan-ley-tenders-resignation-parliament-expenses-scandal/8180602?pfmredir=sm">resigned as health minister</a> following <a href="https://theconversation.com/sussan-ley-and-the-gold-coast-apartment-murky-rules-mean-age-of-entitlement-isnt-over-for-mps-70993">allegations</a> she misused her travel entitlements and breached ministerial standards.</p>
<p>Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said Ley judged resignation to be the appropriate course of action in the interests of the government. But Ley <a href="https://twitter.com/sussanley/status/819758982130565121">has maintained</a> her claims were within the rules.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"819758982130565121"}"></div></p>
<p>In response to the scandal, Turnbull has announced major reforms to the parliamentary entitlements system. The changes are modelled on the UK’s system of vetting MPs’ expenses.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"819760499520700416"}"></div></p>
<h2>What are the proposed reforms?</h2>
<p>The main reform Turnbull announced is the introduction of an independent agency, modelled on the UK’s <a href="http://parliamentarystandards.org.uk/Pages/default.aspx">Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority</a>, for parliamentary entitlements. The <a href="http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/parliamentarians-reporting/">Department of Finance</a> administers Australia’s current system. </p>
<p>The independent authority will be staffed by a member experienced in auditing, a member experienced in remuneration matters, the president of the <a href="http://www.remtribunal.gov.au/">Remuneration Tribunal</a>, a former judge and a former MP. This is a very strong board. It will have significant independence from the government. </p>
<p>MPs and senators will be able to get advice and rulings from the independent agency if they are unsure about a claim. </p>
<p>This means the administration of MPs’ entitlements will now be out of the hands of MPs themselves, who may be interested in a generous interpretation of claimable expenses. MPs’ expenses will now be overseen in a more robust and independent way. </p>
<p>The second reform is to have monthly disclosure of parliamentary expenses, rather than every six months. More frequent reporting will certainly improve the system’s transparency.</p>
<p>The government has also committed to <a href="https://theconversation.com/choppergate-no-more-what-the-review-of-politicians-entitlements-will-mean-56196">implementing the recommendations</a> of the independent review of parliamentary entitlements that followed then-Speaker Bronwyn Bishop’s 2015 “Choppergate” scandal.</p>
<p>As such, entitlement claims will be limited to those made for the dominant purpose of conducting parliamentary business. This excludes political party administration and management, and activities for the dominant purpose of party fundraising, pursuing commercial interests or obtaining personal benefit. </p>
<p>The legal enforcement of the system will be increased. Where MPs misuse entitlements, legislation will oblige them to repay the money – plus a 25% penalty. </p>
<p>The terminology of “entitlements” will be changed to “work expenses”. This is because MPs are given resources to perform their duties in exchange for acting in the public interest.</p>
<h2>What happened in the UK?</h2>
<p>In 2009, the UK had its own <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6226839/No-Expenses-Spared-the-inside-story-of-the-Telegraphs-MPs-expenses-investigation.html">MP expenses scandal</a>. UK MPs made inappropriate claims for a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/dec/10/mps-expenses-50-flipped-homes">second residence allowance</a>, alongside outrageous claims for moat cleaning, a ride-on lawn mower, jellied eels and a duck house. </p>
<p>The scandal led to the first resignation of a Speaker in the House of Commons for more than 300 years, and prompted the resignation of a dozen government ministers.</p>
<p>Following public outrage, <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/13/contents">legislation</a> was introduced to set up the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. It was a strong reaction to a
situation that the then-British prime minister, Gordon Brown, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6226839/No-Expenses-Spared-the-inside-story-of-the-Telegraphs-MPs-expenses-investigation.html">called</a> the “biggest parliamentary scandal for two centuries”.</p>
<p>The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority determines what MPs can claim, and administers and audits those claims. It is independent of government and has significant resources. </p>
<h2>Will the reforms fix the system?</h2>
<p>Turnbull’s reforms will significantly revamp the entitlements system. They introduce for the first time an independent agency to vet MP expenses. If the agency does its job well, it will ensure MPs do not abuse the system. </p>
<p>The reforms will also simplify the system, enhance transparency, tighten the rules, and introduce enforceable penalties. </p>
<p>When the system comes into effect, Australians will hopefully see fewer politicians flying around in helicopters and private jets while attending to their private affairs on public funds. The reforms are a great first step toward rebuilding public trust in our elected representatives.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/71273/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Yee-Fui Ng does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Malcolm Turnbull has announced major changes to the parliamentary entitlements system, modelled on the UK’s system of vetting MPs’ expenses.Yee-Fui Ng, Lecturer, Graduate School of Business and Law, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/710702017-01-10T01:41:25Z2017-01-10T01:41:25ZStamping out political rorts requires a cultural change, not more bodies to police it<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152203/original/image-20170109-7201-1tispz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Greens have renewed calls for a federal body to investigate corruption in politics.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Calls for a federal Independent Commission against Corruption-like body <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/entitlements-scandal-shows-need-for-federal-corruption-watchdog/8171712">are growing</a> following Health Minister Sussan Ley standing aside while several of her <a href="https://theconversation.com/sussan-ley-and-the-gold-coast-apartment-murky-rules-mean-age-of-entitlement-isnt-over-for-mps-70993">travel entitlement claims</a> are investigated. </p>
<p>However, a federal ICAC will not solve the sorts of problems Australian politicians have recently embroiled themselves in: wasting money <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-among-so-many-issues-bronwyn-bishops-helicopter-trip-gets-our-attention-45287">riding in helicopters</a> to a party function when they could have driven; <a href="https://theconversation.com/will-heads-roll-ministerial-standards-and-stuart-robert-54479">meeting with business contacts</a> while impartially representing the government; or claiming travel allowances for trips that do not on the surface <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/this-is-not-the-time-of-year-to-submit-to-the-pub-test-minister-20170106-gtn57v.html">meet the “pub test”</a>.</p>
<h2>Why a federal ICAC won’t help</h2>
<p>A federal ICAC won’t solve problems of greed within the current set of rules for MPs. Instead, we need to foster a culture of integrity rather than entitlement. </p>
<p>Australians can pride themselves that they are <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-bribes-please-were-corrupt-australians-59657">not afflicted</a> on a regular basis by corrupt politicians and officials gouging what they can from a hapless public. Australia does not have a culture of corruption, though it does have <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-15/eddie-obeid-sentenced-five-years-jail-misconduct-public-office/8122720">transgressions from time to time</a>. </p>
<p>Australia has processes for good administration and good procurement, solid administrative law and regulatory agencies that generally are not captured by the interests they regulate.</p>
<p>Notwithstanding this, Australia has been slipping in Transparency International’s respected <a href="http://www.transparency.org/research/cpi/overview">Corruption Perception Index</a>. Australia was <a href="http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015">ranked 13th</a> out of nearly 170 countries in 2015, having fallen from <a href="http://www.transparency.org/cpi2010/results">eighth in 2010</a>. </p>
<p>There are many explanations for this fall. One is not that opportunities for corruption were ever-present, but that people took advantage of these opportunities – and even created them.</p>
<p>An ICAC can only point the finger after the event. Humiliation is a common outcome, but a conviction is rare.</p>
<p>Of the 12 countries that currently rank above Australia on the Corruption Perception Index, only one has a national anti-corruption agency. Singapore, ranked eighth, has a long-standing hardline law-enforcement body. </p>
<p>Australia could never hope to have an agency of similar stature at the federal level. Not only would the resourcing have to be substantial, but it would create a massive turf war with other agencies – and all of this without understanding the problem we are trying to solve.</p>
<p>If the problem is an ingrained culture of corruption, then an ICAC might be considered. If it is arrogant and greedy MPs rorting their allowances, then there are other avenues to fix it.</p>
<h2>What can be done?</h2>
<p>What Australia needs is a stronger culture of integrity. There needs to be a clear understanding that public office is for public benefit and not personal gain. </p>
<p>Yes, people need to be recompensed for doing their jobs. That comes through a salary and allowances for expenses. At the federal level the allowances are generous, and no formal body is going to be able to stop an MP <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/sussan-ley-billed-taxpayers-to-attend-new-years-eve-party-with-job-queen-and-party-donor-sarina-russo-20170109-gtoea3.html">going to a New Year’s Eve party</a> in another state and claiming they conducted business because they met with an important person at the party. </p>
<p>Anybody on the make will always be able to contrive any situation; an ICAC won’t stop these situations. What will stop them is honestly understanding the nature of public service, that they are public property and their behaviour is on the public record.</p>
<p>Contriving travel allowances is not necessarily fraud, but it is certainly waste – waste driven by greed. It is not possible to make a rule for every possible situation, so those who skate on thin ice will always be able to say they have not broken any rules. </p>
<p>However, that is not the solution. The solution is a culture of integrity that is driven from the top. Leaders must lead, be above suspicion themselves and show they have a zero-tolerance approach to the manipulation of the system. Unethical is not necessarily illegal.</p>
<p>A federal ICAC would be expensive, inefficient and divisive. Instead, Australia should opt for an Independent Anti-Corruption Council that would work independently, feel the pulse and refer cases for investigation to appropriate authorities such as the Australian Federal Police, the Public Service Commissioner, the Australian Taxation Office and the Ombudsman. These in turn would take matters to the Director of Public Prosecutions as appropriate. </p>
<p>People are always going to be on the make, but leadership and integrity are a better way to solve the problem rather than another executive agency.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/71070/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adam Graycar has received funding from the Australian Research Council and from the Victorian Independent Broad Based anti-Corruption Commission to conduct research on corruption and integrity.</span></em></p>A federal ICAC will not solve the sorts of problems Australian politicians have recently embroiled themselves in.Adam Graycar, Professor of Social and Policy Studies, Flinders UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/709932017-01-09T03:22:18Z2017-01-09T03:22:18ZSussan Ley and the Gold Coast apartment: murky rules mean age of entitlement isn’t over for MPs<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152056/original/image-20170108-18656-1hwwdr1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Sussan Ley was under pressure to resign following claims she misused her travel entitlements and breached the ministerial standards.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Sussan Ley has <a href="http://malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/travel-claims-by-the-minister-for-health">stood aside</a> as health minister while the prime minister’s department investigates her travel expenses. This move followed <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/01/08/sorry-health-minister-to-front-the-taxpayer-again-over-alleged/">increased pressure</a> on her to resign following claims she misused her travel entitlements and breached the ministerial standards.</p>
<p>In 2015, Ley travelled to Queensland to make an announcement at a breast cancer clinic as part of her ministerial role. During her trip, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/this-is-not-the-time-of-year-to-submit-to-the-pub-test-minister-20170106-gtn57v.html">she bought</a> a A$795,000 Gold Coast apartment at an auction from a Liberal donor, which was said to be “neither planned nor anticipated”. Ley claimed $3,125 of taxpayer money for that trip. </p>
<p>She has also made <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-09/sussan-leys-taxpayer-funded-new-years-eve-trips-unanswered/8169000">multiple other taxpayer-funded trips</a> to the Gold Coast in the last three years. Eighteen of these cost the taxpayer $53,877.</p>
<p>Prior to standing aside, Ley <a href="http://sussanley.com/media-statement-2/">apologised</a> and agreed to repay the travel expenses for the 2015 Gold Coast trip, plus three other trips with irregularities. She said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I have spoken to the prime minister and he agrees that this claim does not meet the high standards he expects of ministers. I apologise for the error of judgement.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Has Ley breached the ministerial standards?</h2>
<p>Ministerial standards set out the rules by which ministers are expected to conduct themselves. The principle underlying them is that ministers should uphold the public’s trust as they wield a great deal of power deriving from their office.</p>
<p>Turnbull’s <a href="https://www.dpmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/statement_ministerial_standards.pdf">statement of ministerial standards</a> proclaims:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Ministers and assistant ministers are entrusted with the conduct of public business and must act in a manner that is consistent with the highest standards of integrity and propriety.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The standards provide that ministers are expected to be able to demonstrate that their actions in conducting public business were taken “with the sole objective of advancing the public interest”. </p>
<p>The standards also say ministers must scrupulously ensure the legitimacy and accuracy for any entitlement claims. This is because they are given resources at public expense that should not be used wastefully.</p>
<p>It is unclear whether Ley has breached the ministerial standards. She will have breached the standards if she was found not to be acting in the public interest, or if her entitlement claims are judged to be illegitimate. But the rules on claiming ministerial entitlements are unclear and very complex.</p>
<p>Ministers have to travel to perform official duties relating to their portfolio. Public funds should be provided to allow them to carry out their duties effectively and without impediment. Ley’s trip to announce the availability of new medicines and to meet with patients would seem to be within her purview as health minister. </p>
<p>The key issue here is that Ley has travelled for dual purposes, one public and one private. As <a href="http://sussanley.com/media-statement-2/">she has acknowledged</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>While attending an auction was not the reason for my visit to Queensland or the Gold Coast, I completely understand this changed the context of the travel undertaken. The distinction between public and private business should be as clear as possible when dealing with taxpayers’ money.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But the parliamentary entitlements system is unclear about trips for dual purposes. There is no definition of “parliamentary business”. The definition of “official business” gives no guidance on trips with mixed public and private purposes. </p>
<p>So, it is not clear whether Ley has misused the entitlements system and therefore breached ministerial standards.</p>
<h2>Do we need to reform the system?</h2>
<p>It is unsatisfactory that the parliamentary entitlements system is so amorphous that we cannot easily work out whether ministers have breached the rules or not. </p>
<p>Then-speaker Bronwyn Bishop’s 2015 <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-02/bronwyn-bishop-stands-down-as-speaker/6666172">“Choppergate scandal”</a> prompted an <a href="http://www.finance.gov.au/sites/default/files/independent-parliamentary-entitlements-system-review-feb-2016.pdf">independent review</a> of parliamentary entitlements. It proposed a new “dominant purpose” test: that is, whether the dominant purpose of the travel is for ministerial or parliamentary duties and not in another capacity. </p>
<p>The rationale behind the test is that ministers should not seek to disguise as official business an activity whose dominant purpose is personal or commercial. This reform is a much-needed step toward improving accountability over MPs’ entitlements.</p>
<p>The Turnbull government <a href="https://theconversation.com/choppergate-no-more-what-the-review-of-politicians-entitlements-will-mean-56196">has agreed</a> to adopt the recommendations of the review. But as Ley’s actions happened before the review, she will be judged under the previous rules. </p>
<p>Another issue with the system is that the prime minister enforces ministerial standards, rather than an independent authority. Such enforcement of ministerial standards has been patchy and inconsistent.</p>
<p>Whether a minister resigns depends on the prime minister of the day and if there is media furore and public outrage over an issue. It is ultimately politics rather than principle that determines which ministers stand and which fall. </p>
<p>This could be improved by giving responsibility for enforcement of ministerial standards to an external agency. This has been done in Ireland, where the <a href="http://www.sipo.gov.ie/en/">Standards in Public Office Commission</a> supervises politicians’ compliance with Ireland’s Ethics Acts.</p>
<h2>What happens next?</h2>
<p>If the prime minister finds that a minister has breached the standards in a substantive and material way, he or she can require the minister’s resignation.</p>
<p>Malcolm Turnbull has asked his departmental secretary, Martin Parkinson, to thoroughly investigate Ley’s travel claims. Her fate rests on the outcome of that investigation and any subsequent media attention.</p>
<p>As holders of high elected office, ministers are the custodians of public trust. But Australia’s current entitlements system for MPs is out of step with public expectations. We need a robust system of parliamentary entitlements and active enforcement of ministerial standards to help restore trust.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70993/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Yee-Fui Ng does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It is unclear whether stood-aside minister Sussan Ley has breached the ministerial standards over her travel expenses. And the rules on claiming entitlements are unclear and very complex.Yee-Fui Ng, Lecturer, Graduate School of Business and Law, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/645982016-08-30T04:43:08Z2016-08-30T04:43:08ZFactCheck Q&A: is a week’s worth of Newstart equal to what a politician can claim for one night in Canberra?<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"770231176069910528"}"></div></p>
<p>The federal government is considering trimming welfare <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/federal-election-2016-welfare-crackdown-at-centre-of-coalition-budget-costings-20160628-gptq4h.html">spending</a> in an effort repair the budget bottom line. </p>
<p>As <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4504647.htm">Q&A panellists debated welfare reform</a>, the founder and chief executive of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, Kon Karapanagiotidis, said on Twitter that what a politician can claim for one night for staying in Canberra for work is equivalent to an entire week on Newstart.</p>
<p>Is that true?</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"770232316018823172"}"></div></p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>When asked for a source to support his assertion, Karapanagiotidis directed The Conversation to a recent <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/federal-election/eyewatering-extent-of-pollies-perks-as-doubledipping-scandal-emerges/news-story/9fbdbb5e83cc058beb52979480f410a6">News.com.au article</a>.</p>
<p>You can read his full response <a href="http://theconversation.com/full-response-from-kon-karapanagiotidis-64601">here</a>. </p>
<p>We can independently test Karapanagiotidis’s original statement against publicly available data. </p>
<h2>How much can a politician claim for a night in Canberra for work?</h2>
<p>The travel allowances for members of parliament are set out <a href="http://maps.finance.gov.au/parliamentarians_travel/TA_rates/Senators_and_Members_Travelling_Allowance_Rates.htm">here</a> on the Department of Finance website. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/135846/original/image-20160830-17851-pce4st.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/135846/original/image-20160830-17851-pce4st.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/135846/original/image-20160830-17851-pce4st.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=331&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/135846/original/image-20160830-17851-pce4st.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=331&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/135846/original/image-20160830-17851-pce4st.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=331&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/135846/original/image-20160830-17851-pce4st.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=416&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/135846/original/image-20160830-17851-pce4st.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=416&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/135846/original/image-20160830-17851-pce4st.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=416&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://maps.finance.gov.au/parliamentarians_travel/TA_rates/Senators_and_Members_Travelling_Allowance_Rates.htm">Department of Finance</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The rate depends on where you are travelling from. Since August 2015, for those travelling from locations within a 30 km radius of Parliament House, the rate is $273 for an overnight stay.</p>
<p>The legislation underpinning this is the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00534">Parliamentary Entitlements Act 1990.</a></p>
<h2>How much is a week of Newstart worth?</h2>
<p>By comparison, the Newstart benefit rates are set out <a href="http://guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law/5/1/8/20">here</a> on the Department of Social Services website.</p>
<p>As outlined in <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-qanda-is-it-true-australias-unemployment-payment-level-hasnt-increased-in-over-20-years-59250">this recent FactCheck</a>, the single rate for Newstart is currently $527.60 per fortnight. The rate for a lone parent is $570.80 per fortnight and the partnered rate is $476.40 per fortnight.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/135847/original/image-20160830-17887-1ufjpkv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/135847/original/image-20160830-17887-1ufjpkv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/135847/original/image-20160830-17887-1ufjpkv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=342&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/135847/original/image-20160830-17887-1ufjpkv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=342&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/135847/original/image-20160830-17887-1ufjpkv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=342&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/135847/original/image-20160830-17887-1ufjpkv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/135847/original/image-20160830-17887-1ufjpkv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/135847/original/image-20160830-17887-1ufjpkv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law/5/1/8/20">Department of Social Services</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So if you compare the flat rate for travelling overnight within Canberra ($273) to the Newstart single rate of $527.60 per fortnight ($263.80 per week), Karapanagiotidis was right, it is an equivalent amount.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Kon Karapanagiotidis was correct. In fact, a politician can claim slightly more in travel allowance for one night’s stay in Canberra than a single person can claim for an entire week on Newstart allowance. <strong>– Yee-Fui Ng</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>I read the figures for the travel allowance on the Department of Finance website as applying to the places where you travel <em>to</em> and not where you travel <em>from</em>. However, this still means that if parliamentarians travel to within 30 kilometres of Parliament House, they receive $273 per night (and if they travel to central Sydney they can receive $400 per night). </p>
<p>The basic rate of Newstart is correct. However, in addition, a single person aged 60 or over, after nine continuous months on payment, also receives up to $570.80 per fortnight. Currently, recipients are very likely to receive two extra payments – the <a href="https://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/income-support-bonus">Income Support Bonus</a> and the <a href="https://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/energy-supplement">Energy Supplement</a>.</p>
<p>However, the Income Support Supplement will cease to be paid next month and it is <a href="https://theconversation.com/albanese-warns-labor-over-clean-energy-supplement-in-omnibus-bill-64533">reported</a> that the Energy Supplement will be abolished in the omnibus budget bill to be introduced in parliament this week. </p>
<p>There are a range of supplementary payments that Newstart recipients may receive depending on their circumstances – for example, <a href="https://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/rent-assistance">Rent Assistance</a> – but this provides only a fraction of what people actually pay in rent.</p>
<p>So it is correct that the basic rates of Newstart, except for payments for lone parents and older long-term recipients, are less than the travel allowance for a one night stay in Canberra. <strong>– Peter Whiteford</strong></p>
<hr>
<p><div class="callout"> Have you ever seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at checkit@theconversation.edu.au. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</div></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/64598/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Whiteford has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Welfare Rights Network and Jobs Australia. He is affilliated with the Centre for Policy Development and is an independent Member of the Sustainability Committee of the National Disability Insurance Agency. He was a member of the Chifley Research Centre Commission on Inclusive Prosperity.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Yee-Fui Ng does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre’s Kon Karapanagiotidis said that what a politician can claim for a one night stay in Canberra is equivalent to an entire week on Newstart. Is that true?Yee-Fui Ng, Lecturer, Graduate School of Business and Law, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/561962016-03-23T23:36:42Z2016-03-23T23:36:42Z‘Choppergate’ no more? What the review of politicians’ entitlements will mean<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115243/original/image-20160316-8453-rlg9yc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The review of MPs' entitlements was instigated following Bronwyn Bishop's resignation from the speakership.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The government <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/personal-limo-service-treasured-by-politicians-comcars-are-now-on-the-chopping-block-20160323-gnp6lh.html">has indicated</a> it will adopt the recommendations of a <a href="http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/parliamentary-entitlements-review/">review of parliamentarian entitlements</a> that was released on Wednesday.</p>
<p>Former prime minister Tony Abbott instigated the review following the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-02/bronwyn-bishop-stands-down-as-speaker/6666172">resignation of Bronwyn Bishop</a> from the speakership over her extravagant entitlement claims. These claims included Bishop’s controversial helicopter trip from Melbourne to Geelong to attend a party fundraiser.</p>
<h2>How does the entitlements system work?</h2>
<p>The current entitlements system for MPs is a complex mix of legislation, regulations, Remuneration Tribunal determinations, executive determinations and non-binding procedural rules.</p>
<p>Under <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00077/Html/Text#_Toc441652595">current legislation</a>, MPs can claim the cost of first-class flights, official cars and approved special-purpose aircraft for travel within Australia. MPs can also claim overseas travel costs with prime ministerial approval.</p>
<p>These entitlements are limited to travel relating to parliamentary or electorate business. Ministers are able to claim additional travel costs for their spouse with prime ministerial approval.</p>
<p>Under “family reunion” benefits, MPs’ spouses and dependants may join them within Australia several times a year. MPs can also claim five return business-class trips to Canberra within six months of retirement.</p>
<p>The Finance Department issues <a href="http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/parliamentarians-reporting">reports</a> on entitlement claims by current and former MPs and their spouses every six months.</p>
<p>When there is an allegation of misuse of entitlements, a <a href="http://maps.finance.gov.au/docs/Protocol_on_Allegations.pdf">protocol</a> allows the Finance Department to conduct audits on these allegations. The department can refer serious allegations to the police. The protocol is not legally enforceable and can be revoked at any time. </p>
<p>There are problems with the current entitlements system. Breaches are investigated completely within the executive under a veil of secrecy, without independent oversight. There are no legally enforceable ways to make MPs repay any misuse of entitlements. It is a complex system, which makes it difficult for MPs to work out what their entitlements are. </p>
<h2>What does the review recommend?</h2>
<p>The panel made 36 recommendations. It adopted a principles-based approach that gives MPs the flexibility to use their judgement, but obliges them to be audited and to report publicly.</p>
<p>The review recommended changing the terminology of “entitlements” to “work expenses”. This is because MPs are given resources to perform their duties in exchange for acting in the public interest.</p>
<p>Parliamentary expenses are to be consolidated into a single piece of legislation. Claims are to be limited to those for the dominant purpose of conducting parliamentary business. This excludes political party administration and management, and activities for the dominant purpose of party fundraising, pursuing commercial interests or obtaining personal benefit. </p>
<p>The review also recommended that the <a href="http://www.finance.gov.au/about-the-department/working-at-finance/recruitment/comcar/about/">COMCAR system</a>, which transports politicians in private cars, be reviewed to achieve better “value for money”. An allowance of A$10 per night for spouses accompanying ministers on travel will be abolished. </p>
<p>The “family reunion” and post-retirement travel benefits will be reduced. The report also suggested banning short trips by helicopter without compelling reasons. </p>
<p>The review recommended more frequent reporting to improve transparency. MPs must lodge their expenses within 30 days, rather than 60 days. The Finance Department must publish these expenses monthly, instead of every six months.</p>
<p>The review also suggested enhancements to the accountability framework. For more serious allegations, membership of the investigation committee must include two independent members, with one being a retired judge. But the Finance Department is still responsible for overseeing the system.</p>
<p>The legal enforcement of the system will be increased. Where parliamentarians misuse entitlements, legislation will oblige them to repay the money – plus a 25% penalty. </p>
<h2>Will this fix the system?</h2>
<p>The review found that the entitlements system was:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… complex, confusing, incomplete, contradictory and immensely difficult to follow and administer. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Such complexity could lead to inadvertent, perceived or deliberate breaches by MPs. These breaches may undermine public confidence in MPs. </p>
<p>When implemented, the recommendations will significantly improve the entitlements system. The reforms will simplify the system, enhance transparency, tighten the rules and introduce enforceable penalties. </p>
<p>The report also enhances the oversight framework. It inserts two independent members for serious allegations.</p>
<p>But there are more independent oversight models. In the UK, the <a href="http://parliamentarystandards.org.uk/Pages/default.aspx">Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority</a> oversees parliamentary expenses. This body is completely independent of the executive and has significant resources. </p>
<p>As holders of public office, we expect politicians to use taxpayer funds responsibly. To achieve this, we need an entitlements system that is transparent, with claims reported regularly and publicly. We should have an independent authority actively monitoring claims and vigilantly enforcing breaches.</p>
<p>This will keep politicians more honest, in line with public expectations. It is only with a robust entitlements system that <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/choppergate-puts-politicians-perks-under-scrutiny-20150724-gijj5o.html">“Choppergate”</a> will not be repeated.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56196/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Yee-Fui Ng does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Only with a robust entitlements system will a repeat of Bronwyn Bishop’s “Choppergate” scandal be avoided.Yee-Fui Ng, Lecturer, Graduate School of Business and Law, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/457772015-08-06T20:09:47Z2015-08-06T20:09:47ZGrattan on Friday: Entitlements issue turns into cluster bomb<p>Memo from Finance Department to minister Mathias Cormann: “Urgently needed – staff reinforcements for the Great Expense Chase”. Just joking. But only a little.</p>
<p>The department’s bureaucrats are now examining Bronwyn Bishop’s expenses over the last decade, plus various claims by <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-06/tony-burke-asks-finance-department-to-review-his-entitlements/6676672">Tony Burke</a> and <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/philip-ruddock-orders-review-of-his-own-expenses-claims/story-fn59niix-1227468553884">Philip Ruddock</a> (at their requests), while considering how to react to independent MP Andrew Wilkie’s <a href="http://www.themercury.com.au/news/politics/denison-mp-andrew-wilkie-calls-for-audit-of-politicians-travel-claims/story-fnpp9w4j-1227469323154">ambitious call</a> for an audit of all travel and accommodation claims made during this and the last parliament (including past MPs).</p>
<p>What started as a scandal around Bronwyn Bishop has exploded like a cluster bomb. It has harmed Tony Abbott among his colleagues – because of his poor handling of the issue – and with the public, and now all MPs are being tarnished in the fallout.</p>
<p>One Liberal backbencher reports constituents are throwing back the Joe Hockey “age of entitlement” phrase. Another says “it’s burnt into our Liberal support base” with struggling small business people saying “we work hard for our dollar – and then see this from the people we vote for”.</p>
<p>Abbott has been anxious for a “truce”, and there are diminishing returns for Labor after it has got its scalp and frontbencher Burke is in the spotlight over his family travel.</p>
<p>But fragments keep exploding. For journalists, it’s easy pickings. All the claims are on the public record. It’s “clickbait” for the media because it is incendiary with voters.</p>
<p>Abbott’s suggestion on Thursday that it is fair enough for entitlements (of a reasonable nature) to cover going to party fundraisers is another example of his tin ear. At present fundraiser trips as such are ruled out – that’s why MPs load them in with one or more official engagements.</p>
<p>A Newspoll next week will show whether the public anger has translated into numbers, just as the government goes into a new parliamentary session and readies to limp past its second anniversary next month.</p>
<p>A freshly weakened Abbott faces some difficult issues and dangerous flashpoints.</p>
<p>Cabinet on Monday is set to tick off on the post-2020 climate targets that Australia will announce for the Paris climate conference, with the Coalition partyroom briefed on Tuesday.</p>
<p>The government says the targets will be very credible, although it will be pulled in different directions in how it promotes them by two audiences – the hardliners in its base who believe the less we do the better, and those in the community who see climate change as a significant challenge that Australia should play its part in addressing.</p>
<p>How these targets are received internationally as well as locally will feed into the contest with Labor over climate policy, which is emerging as one of the major battlegrounds for the election.</p>
<p>Next week will also see the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-01/coalition-mps-to-co-sponsor-private-members-gay-marriage-bill/6587406">cross-party same-sex marriage bill</a> go onto the notice paper, with Liberal backbencher Warren Entsch due to introduce it the following Monday. The pro-same-sex marriage forces are still talking through tactics; their opponents are ramping up their campaign. How Abbott will handle the situation remains unknown.</p>
<p>Parliament’s first item on Monday morning, before condolences for Don Randall, who died last month, will be to elect a new Speaker. Liberal members of the House will choose the Coalition’s nominee, with Victorian Tony Smith currently favourite.</p>
<p>A relatively early task of the new Speaker will be to announce the date of the byelection for Randall’s West Australian seat of Canning.</p>
<p>Byelections can be watershed moments. When John Howard held the Victorian seat of Aston in mid-2001 after the death of Peter Nugent, it was an <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/let-me-remind-you-its-2001-john-howard-is-facing-disaster-20120402-1w8nl.html">important stepping stone</a> in his government’s recovery from a massive low earlier that year, when it had lost a byelection in the Queensland seat of Ryan with a 9.7% swing.</p>
<p>Canning is taking on much significance. On a margin of 11.8% it should be safe for the government. But there are complicating factors. Randall got a big swing last time – some suggest the “real” margin would be perhaps 5%. WA’s economic problems from the wind-down of mining construction, and the unpopularity of both Barnett and Abbott governments will eat away at the vote.</p>
<p>So will the loss of Randall’s personal support. But voters also view differently a byelection caused by a death from one following an MP deciding to quit parliament, as happened in Ryan.</p>
<p>The implications for Abbott and Bill Shorten will depend on the size of the swing and the political climate and expectations at the time.</p>
<p>One thing is certain: if the seat were lost, it would be a massive blow for Abbott, and an immediate immense fillip for Shorten. But it could also be a double-edged sword for Labor – because it could quickly lead to Abbott being toppled.</p>
<p>There are mixed views among Liberals about whether Abbott’s leadership is secure for the next few months.</p>
<p>On the one hand, one detects a lack of energy in the party so that – absent a huge factor, such as a Canning wipeout – it is hard to see the momentum arising again for the sort of backbench push of February.</p>
<p>On the other hand, backbenchers in marginal seats will look increasingly at the polls – which have had the Coalition consistently behind for most of its term – as they get closer to the election.</p>
<p>Abbott is acutely aware of the Coalition’s vulnerability. This week he spent three days in South Australia, bringing forward some A$40 billion worth of surface warship construction and announcing that most of the work would go to Adelaide. His eye was on several seats, including that of Education Minister Christopher Pyne, which could be at risk. </p>
<p>But trying to plug holes in one place brings outbreaks in others – WA and Victoria were quickly complaining about the naval deal.</p>
<p>The polls, the byelection, the government’s patchy performance and Abbott’s flaky style make for an always potentially volatile mix.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45777/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Memo from Finance Department to minister Mathias Cormann: “Urgently needed – staff reinforcements for the Great Expense Chase”. Just joking. But only a little.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/455552015-08-04T19:36:04Z2015-08-04T19:36:04ZNew Speaker must lead the way in restoring parliamentary ethics and trust<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/90674/original/image-20150804-15149-gqf2ej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Bronwyn Bishop resigned as Speaker following a controversy that brought the public's trust in her office into question.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Daniel Munoz</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-speakership-a-prize-out-of-nowhere-for-whom-45620">race</a> to become the new Speaker of the House of Representatives following Bronwyn Bishop’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/bronwyn-bishop-finally-resigns-as-speaker-45559">resignation</a> is hotting up. </p>
<p>But what can the new Speaker do to restore the Australian public’s faith in the office – and in MPs more broadly – after Bishop’s resignation due to a series of lavish entitlement claims?</p>
<h2>Restoring basic integrity</h2>
<p>The new Speaker must act decisively to end <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/comment/why-bronwyn-bishop-needs-to-leave-the-speakers-chair-20150323-1m5dbt.html">perceptions</a> that the chair of the House had become an instrument for the government rather than the guardian of the rights of all MPs – no matter what their party – and of the House’s integrity.</p>
<p>By demonstrating impartial application of the House’s rules, the new Speaker can first restore the respect of non-government MPs in their high office and, by extension, enhance citizens’ trust in parliamentary democracy.</p>
<p>The Australian parliament has slipped badly behind better parliamentary practice, such as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association’s <a href="http://www.cpahq.org/cpahq/Main/Document_Library/Codes_of_Conduct/Codes_of_Conduct_.aspx">Benchmarks for Codes of Conduct for Members of Parliament</a>. </p>
<p>I was the leader of the team that developed the benchmarks. They combine and build on the best code provisions from throughout the almost 200 houses of parliaments in the Commonwealth. In particular, the UK and Canada have made major reforms that leave Australia’s parliament looking very backward.</p>
<p>Such a code could restore the separation of parliament and executive government – something that has been lost in Canberra. It could build a strong parliamentary integrity system – that is, a range of powers and a culture that support and enforce ethical conduct.</p>
<p>The federal parliament dropped the ball on a code of conduct in 2011 when the Senate declined to support a very modest proposal by the House of Representatives. The new Speaker could resurrect the idea and lead the adoption of a code based on the benchmarks by the House alone. The Senate could make its own decision, respectful of the autonomy of each chamber to decide such matters.</p>
<h2>Fixing the entitlements system</h2>
<p>The Speaker’s little-appreciated role outside the House in session could be key to resolving the entitlements furore. The new Speaker should take the lead on reforming parliament’s integrity system rather than leaving it to the very limited and fragmentary <a href="http://www.pm.gov.au/media/2015-08-02/independent-parliamentary-entitlements-system">parliamentary entitlements review</a> announced by the prime minister.</p>
<p>Using a code as the centrepiece of an effective parliamentary integrity system, federal MPs’ use of “entitlements” would be rigorously policed.</p>
<p>The current system has pre-computer-age delays that have no justification. Under a reformed system, MPs could report spending on a continuous basis as part of the routine management of the public resources used to do their jobs in parliament and in the electorate. The parliament would immediately publish expenditure reported by each MP (for example, travel) and also the money parliament spends on behalf of the MP (for example, office rent).</p>
<p>A government department would thus no longer control the services and funds used to support MPs, removing the blurred separation of parliament and the executive. Parliament would manage this in accordance with the code’s extensive provisions.</p>
<p>However, an international standard code would go far beyond administering entitlements. It would ensure that MPs had professional development and independent advice on ethics. Allegations of breaches of the code would be given to the Speaker, who must refer them to a separate independent officer. This person would investigate the facts of the allegation, with protections against false or frivolous claims. </p>
<p>Such a system makes it much harder for breaches to be swept under that carpet. In practice, codes like this lead to parliaments acting firmly against MPs found to have breached the code in almost all cases.</p>
<p>The code would include a graduated scale of penalties and sanctions, ranging from a reprimand to expulsion. The final decision is for the House to make. Clearly, expulsion would be limited to the most extreme, egregious breaches.</p>
<p>The Speaker has the opportunity and the responsibility to lead the cultural climate within the parliament. This is essential to underpin ethical conduct. Not only should their conduct be exemplary and beyond reproach, but the Speaker should take every opportunity to subtly remind MPs of the responsibilities they bear to act in the public interest and in compliance with the spirit and letter of a code.</p>
<p>The new Speaker can earn a place in history by leading the implementation and rigorous enforcement of a code of conduct for MPs.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Ken will be on hand for an Author Q&A between 10:30 and 11:30am on Thursday, August 6. Post your questions in the comments section below.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45555/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ken Coghill is a former Speaker and Member of the Victorian Parliament and is a life member of the Australian Labor Party. He led development of Benchmarks for Codes of Conduct for Members of Parliament under a research contract with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.</span></em></p>What can the new Speaker do to restore the Australian public’s faith in the office – and in MPs more broadly – after Bronwyn Bishop’s resignation due to a series of lavish entitlement claims?Ken Coghill, Associate Professor, Department of Management, Monash Business School, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/455712015-08-03T20:08:04Z2015-08-03T20:08:04ZWanted: an independent umpire to set and enforce clear parliamentary entitlement rules<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/90564/original/image-20150803-5998-1v74xba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Tony Abbott has put the entire system of parliamentary entitlements up for review.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="http://www.pm.gov.au/media/2015-08-02/independent-parliamentary-entitlements-system">parliamentary entitlements review</a> called by Prime Minister Tony Abbott on Sunday is to start:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… with a blank sheet of paper to provide options on a system that is truly independent. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The <a href="http://www.remtribunal.gov.au/media/documents/2015/2014-determinations/2014-16-determination-members-of-parliament-travelling-allowance/2014-16-MPs-Travel-Determination-7.8.2014.pdf">whole system</a> is up for review. This is welcome.</p>
<h2>What needs to be done?</h2>
<p>The first key change is the emphasis on an independent system of setting and monitoring parliamentary entitlements. The present system could hardly be called that. Expenses are lodged with the Finance Department, which reviews them. But it lacks real authority to overrule claims. </p>
<p>It would seem likely that an independent entity may need to be established not only to set and monitor parliamentary entitlements, but also to operate and enforce the whole system. That would be a big change. </p>
<p>Setting up an independent body would involve considerable expense and heavy use of regulation. But it is probably the best means of restoring faith in the parliamentary entitlements system.</p>
<p>A second important change should be in relation to transparency. The 2010 parliamentary entitlements review, of which I was a member, <a href="http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/review-of-parliamentary-entitlements-committee-report/docs/review-of-parliamentary-entitlements-committee-report.pdf">recommended</a> that the websites of all MPs should provide a link to their expenditures as recorded by Finance. This and some other pro-transparency measures have not been adopted in the five years since then. </p>
<p>Now is the time for a proper system of transparency. It is the best single method of curbing excessive entitlements. Consideration should be given to having a system under which MPs must show on their own website their travel and other expenses and their justification – with this being done within, say, a month of the expenses having been incurred.</p>
<p>The third need is for much clearer rules. Currently the key rules are undefined. MPs can claim travel entitlements in relation to parliamentary, electorate or official expenses. It is not clear what these are. The rules do not even explicitly state that entitlements cannot be claimed for party political events, although that is widely understood to be the rule.</p>
<p>There is no doubt that the rules could be clarified a great deal, even though this is a difficult task and will leave some issues unresolved. What is the entitlement if an MP travels interstate partly to take part in a political party event and partly to take part in an official event? What if part of the travel is for personal business? </p>
<p>What if an MP wants to attend a funeral? We all know the restrictions there are on attending weddings, but what about funerals?</p>
<p>The next change required is greater simplicity. The current system is extremely complex. There is a mass of legislation, rules and practices that overlap, are very difficult to interpret and inconsistent. </p>
<p>The 2010 review proposed that there be legislative and regulatory clarification and resolution of a number of these issues and give a framework for doing so, but no action was taken to implement it. Any serious reform has to sort out the legislative and regulatory maze.</p>
<p>Another proposal is that there be greater emphasis on pre-authorisation of problematic travel requests. There is much to be said for this. Having been a regulator, I can point to the hazards for the regulator of making pre-event rulings because the facts as they appear after the event are often different from the facts as originally specified in the application. </p>
<p>A politician may get advance approval for interstate travel or international travel without disclosing that in their spare time they would be engaging in party political activities or personal business activities. Even so, there is scope for some pre-authorisation.</p>
<p>It would be good if we had a system that generated less political noise. Not only would there be greater trust in MPs and in the political process generally, but we could avoid the major distractions from serious policy debates as a result of controversies over parliamentary entitlements.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45571/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Allan Fels does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It would be good if we had a transparent parliamentary entitlements system that generated less political noise. We could avoid the major distractions from serious policy debates.Allan Fels, Professorial Fellow, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/455892015-08-03T05:18:22Z2015-08-03T05:18:22ZBishop resignation won’t end impact on Coalition<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/90559/original/image-20150803-5978-miwi0y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The scandal surrounding Bronwyn Bishop's entitlements may not have ended with her resignation as Speaker.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>When the Bronwyn Bishop “choppergate” scandal <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-15/bronwyn-bishop-spends-5000-dollars-80km-charter-flight/6622134">broke</a>, it could have disappeared into oblivion without any major consequence. Instead, it grew disproportionately and culminated in the Speaker’s <a href="http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/news/bronwyn-bishop-resigns-as-speaker/story-fnjbnts5-1227466865235">resignation</a> on Sunday.</p>
<p>Bishop’s charging of the taxpayer more than A$5000 for the 75km trip between Melbourne and Geelong was excessive. But, if she had quickly apologised and paid back the money – plus the penalty – the story probably would have lost its appeal. Instead, her refusal even to consider an apology for weeks aggrandised the scandal to the point of no return.</p>
<p>Combined, the nature of the controversy, Bishop’s party affiliation, her behaviour as Speaker of the House, and the way she and her party leadership dealt with the issue created the perfect storm for a political scandal.</p>
<h2>Should we expect long-term consequences?</h2>
<p>My <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ssqu.12046/abstract">research</a> on the consequences of scandals, based on American data, shows that they have a clear electoral effect that lingers for several years after the fact. The Bishop scandal’s potential consequences should be analysed on at least three distinct levels.</p>
<p>First, are the consequences to Bishop herself, which may be both personal and political. Even though an <a href="https://theconversation.com/bishops-wedding-trips-not-yet-under-finance-departments-microscope-45372">investigation</a> is still in progress, it seems unlikely that Bishop’s actions will end up being – strictly speaking – illegal. She may end up being liable for the repayment of a few more expenses, but this will probably be the only consequence she personally faces. </p>
<p>Bishop could, however, face electoral consequences. She represents the NSW seat of <a href="http://results.aec.gov.au/17496/Website/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-17496-132.htm">Mackellar</a>, which is considered a safe Liberal seat. However, the electoral effects of a scandal, especially during the electoral cycle immediately after the scandal itself, can be quite brutal.</p>
<p>In the United States, I estimate the electoral impact of a political scandal at between ten and 15 points. Should the same – or a similar logic – apply to Australia, Bishop could be at risk of losing her seat despite holding it by a margin of more than 18%.</p>
<p>This is true especially because given such a prominent scandal, the Labor Party could have a clear incentive to find a strong candidate to run against Bishop.</p>
<p>Second, there may be consequences for the Liberal Party more broadly. Because Bishop occupied such an important office, and especially because Prime Minister Tony Abbott gave her <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/comment/tony-abbotts-support-of-bronwyn-bishop-is-crippling-the-government-20150731-giozsj.html">his support</a> throughout the scandal, voters could view this as a scandal of the Liberal Party and its leadership, not only of Bishop as an individual.</p>
<p>If the electoral impact of scandals I found by analysing almost 50 years of American data applies similarly to Australia, and Australian voters attribute the scandal to the wider Liberal Party, even a much more modest impact than what I found in the US could safely hand the next election to Labor.</p>
<p>Third, there may be consequences for Abbott and his leadership. His response to this crisis was slow and unclear. He did mildly <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/bronwyn-bishop-helicopter-scandal-tony-abbotts-blunt-warning-to-speaker-20150721-gih014.html">condemn</a> the helicopter ride and the major expenses, but the timing was off and the remarks were not as clear as they could have been.</p>
<p>Abbott also clearly tried to divert attention from Bishop as an individual by announcing a wide-ranging review of MPs’ entitlements. The question here is whether the majority of voters will simply welcome this initiative as a step towards reducing the waste of taxpayer funds, or accuse Abbott of trying to bury Bishop’s sins by attempting to muddy all MPs. </p>
<p>Additionally, there was a clear rupture not only within the governemnt, but also within its frontbench. Several Liberal MPs, including some <a href="http://www.afr.com/news/bronwyn-bishops-quick-helicopter-flit-fails-hockey-sniff-test-20150715-gideiy">ministers</a>, failed to express their support for Bishop during the past couple of weeks. It is unclear whether their differences were restricted to the scandal itself and, now that Bishop has resigned, they can all move on, or if this disagreement was a symptom of something deeper and more complex.</p>
<h2>The scandal isn’t over with Bishop’s resignation</h2>
<p>My analysis of hundreds of political scandals concluded that the only way one can end with a resignation is if the politician in question takes all the blame for the scandal, retires from public life altogether, and there are no legal consequences to the scandal itself.</p>
<p>In Bishop’s case, none of the these three conditions has yet been met. While she did resign as Speaker, she remains an MP. She is still a prominent figure within the Liberal Party; she is clearly close to Abbott. While the blame for the expenses does fall on her and her alone, Abbott got dragged into the story and is being accused of defending Bishop. Consequently, the blame could end up being diffused, at least in the public eye. </p>
<p>Finally, with an investigation into Bishop’s expenses underway, there may be more to come in this story. There is also now a whole review of the parliamentary entitlement rules, and it is almost certain that new violations by several MPs will be found in the coming months. </p>
<p>The scandal is far from being over. Only time will tell whether it has lasting electoral consequences. Either way, Australia will continue talking about Bishop and the expenses of its MPs for months to come.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45589/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rodrigo Praino does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Combined, the nature of the controversy, Bishop’s behaviour as Speaker, and the way she and her party dealt with the issue created the perfect storm for a damaging scandal.Rodrigo Praino, Lecturer, School of Social and Policy Studies, Flinders UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/455602015-08-02T12:24:58Z2015-08-02T12:24:58ZAbbott’s attempt at damage control brings inquiry into MPs’ entitlements<p>One snippet sums up Bronwyn Bishop’s disconnect with the real world. Her spokesman was quoted at the weekend saying she had often preferred limousines because they could travel in bus lanes, thus getting her to places more quickly. </p>
<p>Bishop’s view of her own importance as a public figure is breathtaking. She seems to have had no normal sense of awareness – no idea that, if she wanted to be on time for a function, she should leave earlier, or cram in fewer engagements. Not get a helicopter or charter a plane. Or even choose a car service based on its capacity to zip along in the bus lane.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/bronwyn-bishop-finally-resigns-as-speaker-45559">Bishop’s Sunday resignation</a> is a massive relief to the government – but anyone else would have quit well before.</p>
<p>We don’t know the final dynamics between Bishop and Tony Abbott in the lead-up to her letter to the Governor-General. But we do know that Abbott has come out of the affair very badly.</p>
<p>After Bishop’s A$5000 helicopter flight came to light, Abbott misread the situation completely, thinking it could be easily dismissed as a bit of trivia, soon forgotten, especially when Bishop said she would repay the money with the required penalty.</p>
<p>Even after senior ministers <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-29/senior-ministers-ropeable-over-bronwyn-bishop-scandal/6656936">were distancing themselves</a> from Bishop last week, Abbott was workshopping survival tactics with her, which resulted in that cringe-making apology.</p>
<p>Then on Sunday Abbott, unveiling a comprehensive review of MPs’ entitlements system, was arguing the problem was the system rather than the individual.</p>
<p>“Plainly, what has happened – not just with Bronwyn but with quite a few people, on both sides of the fence – is that we have a situation where spending is arguably inside the rules but plainly outside of community expectations, and that’s what needs to be dealt with once and for all and that is why we need this fundamental root and branch review,” Abbott told his news conference announcing Bishop’s resignation.</p>
<p>But in fact there are two problems: the system, and the woman who treated it as though she was responsible to no one.</p>
<p>The review is welcome. Getting an independent, clearer, more transparent set of rules is important – although Abbott’s stress that they need to acknowledge MPs’ “political duties” as well as their governmental and parliamentary ones might be a bit of a worry. Hopefully this will not see the legitimisation of claims for attendance at fundraisers.</p>
<p>The rules, however, were not the primary problem in Bishop’s case, although their vagueness may have made it harder to nail her breaches.</p>
<p>MPs know they should not claim to attend fundraisers. They certainly know that taking a helicopter to travel between Melbourne and Geelong is beyond the pale, whatever the occasion and the letter of the rules.</p>
<p>They should know that colleagues’ weddings are social occasions, for which expenses should be met personally. Undoubtedly they know that stories should not be spun of secret meetings to do with parliamentary committee business.</p>
<p>There is a clear distinction between the totally unacceptable behaviour of Bishop and some obvious faults of the system.</p>
<p>Abbott himself was, until the last few days, showing little interest in a big overhaul of entitlements.</p>
<p>Abbott’s initiative for the review looks to have two drivers. He used it to cast the specific Bishop case as just part of a more general problem – to excuse Bishop or soften the blow for her. This is to distort reality because her case was out on its own, given her pattern of behaviour and the amounts involved.</p>
<p>Secondly and centrally, Abbott had to find some way of trying to mollify public outrage. What better than a very long inquiry? It will report next year, perhaps just in time for Abbott to announce a reformed system before the election.</p>
<p>Meanwhile Abbott has to get a new Speaker.</p>
<p>Defence Minister Kevin Andrews previously has been spoken of – but he has ruled out any interest.</p>
<p>Philip Ruddock would be a safe choice, overlooking the irony that such an elevation would follow Abbott having sacked him as whip.</p>
<p>Deputy Speaker Bruce Scott would slip easily into the job – if the Liberals didn’t mind handing a plum position to a National.</p>
<p>South Australian Liberal backbencher Andrew Southcott’s name is being mentioned. Often in the past the post has gone to a senior backbencher so that would be in the groove.</p>
<p>Bishop was Abbott’s captain’s pick. Will the Liberal members of the House of Representatives want a say this time? Certainly consultation will be expected.</p>
<p>One thing you can bet on pretty confidently: the next Speaker will be both better, and cheaper for the taxpayer, than the last.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45560/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
One snippet sums up Bronwyn Bishop’s disconnect with the real world. Her spokesman was quoted at the weekend saying she had often preferred limousines because they could travel in bus lanes, thus getting…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/449192015-07-20T20:12:55Z2015-07-20T20:12:55ZBishop case rests on whether fundraiser was Speaker’s ‘official business’<p>Prime Minister Tony Abbott has <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-20/pm-says-bishop-has-copped-a-justifiable-hiding/6632986">said</a> Speaker Bronwyn Bishop is on “probation” after spending more than A$5000 of taxpayers’ money on a helicopter trip from Melbourne to Geelong to attend a Liberal Party fundraiser, but has stopped short of saying Bishop broke the rules.</p>
<p>Bishop has defended her actions, <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/272045681/Bronwyn-Bishop-Transcript-Press-Conference-Sydney-Saturday-18-July-2015">telling reporters</a> on Saturday that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The fact of the matter is it was done within entitlement but, as I said, the amount of money was clearly far too large and that’s why I’m paying it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>On Monday, Bishop’s chief of staff, Damien Jones, told The Conversation that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Department of Finance has commenced a review into the charter undertaken on 5 November 2015. The Speaker has subsequently asked the Department to review all presiding officer charter she has undertaken. It is inappropriate for the Speaker to continue to offer commentary whilst this process is now underway.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>No explicit prohibition, but meaning of rules is clear</h2>
<p>I was a member of the <a href="http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/review-of-parliamentary-entitlements-committee-report/">Review of Parliamentary Entitlements Committee</a> in 2009-10. </p>
<p>The question in this case is whether Bishop can justify attending the party fundraiser primarily for official business as Speaker. </p>
<p>There are rules about travel entitlements such as direct travel costs and overnight allowances. They are set out in <a href="http://www.remtribunal.gov.au/media/documents/2015/2014-determinations/2014-16-determination-members-of-parliament-travelling-allowance/2014-16-MPs-Travel-Determination-7.8.2014.pdf">Remuneration Tribunal Determination 2014/16: Members of Parliament – Travelling Allowance, August 2014</a>.</p>
<p>As the Speaker is an “office holder”, it is worth examining the rules for ministers and office holders. They are similar to the rules for ordinary MPs. <a href="http://www.remtribunal.gov.au/media/documents/2015/2014-determinations/2014-16-determination-members-of-parliament-travelling-allowance/2014-16-MPs-Travel-Determination-7.8.2014.pdf">Section 3.8</a> of the Remuneration Tribunal determination of August 2014 reads as follows:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Travelling allowance shall be payable to a Minister (other than the Prime Minister) or an office holder for each overnight stay in a place other than his or her home base when that stay is occasioned primarily by: </p>
<p>a) sittings of the House of Parliament or direct travel to or from such sittings; or </p>
<p>b) official business as a Minister or as an office holder; or </p>
<p>c) meetings of, or the formal business of, parliamentary committees of which he or she is a member or direct travel to or from such meetings; or </p>
<p>d) meetings in Canberra of his or her parliamentary political party, of its executive or of its committees (see clause 1.6.2) or direct travel to or from such meetings; or </p>
<p>e) meetings of his or her parliamentary political party executive (see
clause 1.6.2) outside Canberra or direct travel to or from such meetings; or </p>
<p>f) meetings, other than in Canberra, of a parliamentary political party, or of its executive, or of its committees, and attendance at the national and state conferences of a political party, to which he or she belongs (see clause 1.6.2), and meetings outside the electorate on electorate business up to a maximum of ten overnight stays per annum in total, and direct travel to or from such meetings or conferences. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>There is no explicit statement that attendance at party events, party fundraisers and so on is prohibited. </p>
<p>However, it is clear from the way in which the rules are spelled out that the travel entitlements do not cover attendance at party events, other than those specified above. It is especially obvious that attendance at a party fundraising event is not covered. </p>
<h2>‘Official business’</h2>
<p>There is, however, a criterion that states that if a minister or an office holder attends primarily on official business as an office holder, there is a travel entitlement. </p>
<p>Could it be said that this rule might cover attendance by the Speaker at a party function? </p>
<p>There are some non-party functions where travel entitlements might apply: attendance at a university, say, to give a talk about the Speaker’s role in a seminar on this topic might well be covered as official business of the Speaker.</p>
<p>However, to claim that attendance at a party function is occasioned primarily by official business as Speaker raises many questions.</p>
<p>By way of analogy, if a minister claims entitlement for attendance at a party event because they were attending primarily on official business as a minister, this would seem not easily allowable.</p>
<p>Also, if the party event were principally a fundraiser and the Speaker claimed to have attended on the basis that the visit is “occasioned primarily by … official business as an office holder”, there would be a considerable onus on the Speaker to produce information that demonstrates that this criterion was satisfied notwithstanding that the event was a fundraiser. What official business would take the Speaker to an event that was a party fundraiser? </p>
<p>Turning to the Geelong function, it seems clear that if the Speaker attends what is purely a party function such as a fundraiser simply as a member of her party, then the travel allowance does not apply. </p>
<p>On the other hand, if the Speaker is invited to a function in her official capacity, then more information is required. Was the Speaker invited in her capacity as Speaker? Did she give a speech about the role of the Speaker? Even then, was it official business?</p>
<p>Another interesting question is whether the Speaker thought subjectively that she had been invited as Speaker on official business for the event rather than as a member of the Liberal Party. The test would, however, seem to be objective. </p>
<p>Some comparisons have been made with the case of former speaker <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/peter-slipper">Peter Slipper</a>, accused of misusing taxpayer-funded taxi vouchers. To my mind, however, that was a different type of case. There were allegations of deceit and dishonesty and it seems appropriate that such claims are referred to the police (as it happened, Slipper was ultimately found <a href="http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2015/02/26/slipper-wins-appeal-against-dishonesty-charge.html">not guilty</a> of any of these allegations). </p>
<p>The case concerning the present Speaker on the surface appears different. </p>
<h2>Judgement needed</h2>
<p>The umpire in a disputed case like this appears to be the finance minister (and ultimately the prime minister). Finance officials look at claims and if there are problems they are typically referred back to the member of Parliament, and then the finance minister. </p>
<p>The Review of Parliamentary Entitlements Committee on which I sat briefly considered whether that rule should be spelled out in more detail but in that, as in several other matters, the committee concluded that there were boundary issues that made precise definition somewhat problematic. </p>
<p>For example, it generally felt that if a member of a party attended a parliamentary function by car and then subsequently used the car to go on to a nearby party event, then that kind of incidental expenditure was not a problem under the criteria. </p>
<p>The committee’s belief was that it was difficult to fashion a precise rule to cover all these situations and, in the end, judgement is required on these matters.</p>
<p>What’s important is that MPs are made to be as transparent as possible by posting details of their expenditure on their entitlements on the website of each MP but this has not been widely adopted. Some information is available on the Department of Finance <a href="http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/parliamentarians-reporting/">website</a>. Transparency will make MPs quite careful about the expenses they claim and the public will be as well informed as possible.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44919/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Allan Fels does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The question in the Bronwyn Bishop helicopter hire case is whether she can justify attending the party fundraiser primarily for official business as Speaker.Allan Fels, Professorial Fellow, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.