tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/expenses-7491/articlesExpenses – The Conversation2024-03-04T13:28:02Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2243802024-03-04T13:28:02Z2024-03-04T13:28:02ZCost-of-living crisis: experts share 3 survival tips<p>The price increases for essential goods such as food, petrol and household utilities are a global concern, but the region most hurt by the <a href="https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/ar/2023/in-focus/cost-of-living-crisis/#:%7E:text=The%20IMF%20heightened%20its%20efforts,the%202008%20global%20financial%20crisis.">surge in food prices</a> is sub-Saharan Africa. The knock-on effect from the supply chain disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, climate disasters that resulted in food insecurity and energy shortages have driven prices through the roof.</p>
<p>A report by <a href="https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/rankings_by_country.jsp?title=2024&region=002">Numbeo</a>, which contains the world’s largest database on costs of living, found that South Africa is the ninth most expensive African country to live in and the most expensive in cost of living (in terms of groceries, transport, utilities and restaurants) in southern Africa. The index shows Côte d'Ivoire is the African country with the highest cost of living, followed by Senegal, Ethiopia, Mozambique and Mauritius. </p>
<p>Consumers have had to cope with food prices by meal planning or buying in bulk to save money. Unilever’s food group <a href="https://www.news24.com/news24/bi-archive/south-african-consumer-go-on-tight-budgets-to-keep-meat-on-their-plate-2022-5">Knorr</a> found that the average South African was also skipping breakfast and eating two meals on weekdays, and only having breakfast during the weekend. </p>
<p>After years of researching <a href="https://researchprofiles.canberra.edu.au/en/persons/bomikazi-zeka/publications/">personal finance</a> and <a href="https://scholar.google.com.au/citations?user=f2301MMAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">development finance</a>, we have taken a keen interest in understanding how consumers manage their resources to overcome economic challenges, such as the cost-of-living crisis. Now is a good time to be financially prudent and plan for how you can keep afloat during these tough times. </p>
<p>It’s important to know how to manage the cost-of-living crisis, whether it’s by getting out of debt, being strategic about how you save or tracking the expenses that consume a big chunk of your income. Keeping an eye out for where you can boost your savings or reduce expenses can make a significant difference to your financial wellbeing. </p>
<p>Since everyone’s financial situation is different, none of this should be taken as financial advice. It’s always best to speak to an authorised financial service provider. Some of these suggestions may only be helpful to individuals with access to banking services and those earning a regular income. With these provisos in mind, we unpack three areas to consider when managing the cost-of-living crisis.</p>
<h2>1. Consolidate your expenses</h2>
<p>Review where you’re paying for the same expense twice. A good example is bank fees. If you’re banking with more than one bank, then chances are you’re paying bank fees for similar transactions across different banks. By housing your finances with one bank, you can reduce bank fees. </p>
<p>Another example is subscriptions for streaming services. Consider how many accounts like Netflix, YouTube Premium, AppleTV and Showmax you have, and ask yourself: how many of them do you really spend time watching? All the fees add up. As Benjamin Franklin, the former US statesman, once put it: “Beware of little expenses. A small leak will sink a great ship.”</p>
<h2>2. Clear debt</h2>
<p>Since the cost-of-living crisis plunged more South African households into indebtedness, Nedbank’s Financial Health <a href="https://moneyedge.co.za/content/dam/moneyedge-2-0/money-conversations/NEDFIN-Health-Monitor-Report.pdf">Report</a> found that almost 50% of South Africans believe it is okay to take on debt to cover household expenses such as groceries, clothing, furniture, appliances, electricity and water. In <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/2dbc240e-328a-452b-9347-5091d74f4003">Nigeria</a>, too, consumers are turning to loans to cover daily expenses as inflation rates rise. </p>
<p>Taking on more debt when living expenses are on the rise can easily sink you deeper into the debt hole. Instead, coming up with a plan to pay off debts will eventually free up your cash flows. </p>
<p>There are two strategies to try: the debt snowball approach or the debt avalanche method. </p>
<p>The debt snowball approach prioritises paying off your smallest debts first, before moving on to larger loans. Seeing your debt clearing up motivates you.</p>
<p>The debt avalanche approach tackles the debts with the highest interest rate first and will thus save you the most money as your high interest repayments are eliminated. </p>
<p>Whichever approach you decide to use, seek the opinion of a professional financial advisor. </p>
<h2>3. Compartmentalise your savings</h2>
<p>Saving provides financial security and a buffer for unplanned financial expenses. And it helps you reach your financial goals. While households with intermittent income are more likely to struggle with building up savings, opportunities to save may come in the form of reducing shopping costs, like switching to supermarket brands (which tend to be cheaper) or buying refills for household cleaning products. </p>
<p>In general, most people who actively save keep their savings for holidays, emergency funds, future purchases and long-term goals all in the same account. The problem with this approach is that when you need to withdraw from the savings account, you don’t know which part of your savings you’re withdrawing from. </p>
<p>One way to organise your savings is by separating them into the categories you are saving for. This could be done in a spreadsheet that shows how much you have saved for each category. You can clearly see how your savings for each goal are growing, which encourages you to keep the savings momentum going. </p>
<p>If you’re interested in taking this a step further, budgeting apps such as <a href="https://www.22seven.com/">22seven</a> create personalised budgets based on your actual spending patterns. This free app allows you to set limits for what you want to spend and tracks how much you’ve already spent.</p>
<p>For example, you can decide what you plan to spend for lifestyle expenses (such as dining out or shopping) and receive a notification when you are close to reaching your spending limit. But it’s important to practise some self-discipline and not overspend once those funds are depleted. And while this may seem like yet another app that needs to be installed, think of how easy it is to tap your debit card when going about your day and spending more than you had planned. </p>
<p>Sometimes we need to put measures in place to save ourselves from ourselves, and this is one of them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/224380/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Keeping an eye out for where you can boost your savings or reduce expenses when times are tough can improve your financial wellbeing.Bomikazi Zeka, Assistant Professor in Finance and Financial Planning, University of CanberraAbdul Latif Alhassan, Professor of Development Finance & Insurance, University of Cape TownLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1891002022-09-28T12:33:43Z2022-09-28T12:33:43ZWe tend to underestimate our future expenses – here’s one way to prevent that<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/484715/original/file-20220914-9158-53y9lt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=44%2C7%2C4860%2C3250&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Around 12 million Americans take out payday loans to help them pay for monthly expenses.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/woman-holding-an-empty-wallet-she-hasnt-money-royalty-free-image/656909910?adppopup=true">andriano_cz/iStock / Getty Images Plus via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/research-brief-83231">Research Brief</a> is a short take about interesting academic work.</em> </p>
<h2>The big idea</h2>
<p>When asked to estimate how much money they would spend in the future, people underpredicted the total amount by more than C$400 per month. However, when prompted to think about unexpected spending in addition to typical expenses, people made much more accurate predictions.</p>
<p>These are the main findings of a series of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177%2F00222437211068025">studies and experiments that we conducted</a> and which have just been published in the <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/home/mrj">Journal of Marketing Research</a>.</p>
<p>In our first study, we began by asking 187 members of a Canadian credit union to predict their weekly spending for the next five weeks. Then, at the end of each week, we asked them how much they actually spent. </p>
<p>For the first four weeks, people underpredicted their weekly spending by about $100 per week or $400 for the month. </p>
<p>In the study’s fifth and final week, we ran an experiment to see if we could improve people’s prediction accuracy.</p>
<p>Specifically, we randomly assigned participants to one of two groups. In group one, participants estimated their spending for the next week just as they had done in previous weeks. These folks once again significantly underpredicted their spending. </p>
<p>In group two, participants were asked to think of three reasons why their spending for the next week might be different than usual before making their estimate. This led them to make higher and much more accurate predictions – coming within just $7 of what they actually spent.</p>
<p>Importantly, participants in each group spent roughly the same amount of money that week, on average. The only difference between the two groups was whether they accurately predicted that amount.</p>
<p><iframe id="WlDv3" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/WlDv3/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Next, we conducted nine experiments to better understand why people underpredict their spending and whether being prompted to think of unusual expenses helps improve accuracy. In all, over 5,800 people participated in these experiments, including a representative sample of U.S. residents.</p>
<p>These experiments revealed two important insights. </p>
<p>First, people primarily base their spending predictions on typical expenses like groceries, gasoline and rent. They usually fail to account for irregular – though still common – expenses like car repairs, last-minute concert tickets or one-off health care bills. This is what leads to underprediction.</p>
<p>Second, prompting people to think of irregular expenses in addition to typical expenses helps them to make more accurate spending predictions. In our studies, people did not factor in atypical expenses unless we asked them to do so.</p>
<h2>Why it matters</h2>
<p>Helping people improve the accuracy of their spending predictions could help them improve their financial well-being.</p>
<p>Underpredicting expenses can be costly. For example, 12 million Americans <a href="https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2012/07/19/who-borrows-where-they-borrow-and-why">borrow a total of more than $7 billion</a> in payday loans each year because they can’t meet their monthly expenses. These loans typically have extremely high interest rates – <a href="https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/data-visualizations/2022/how-well-does-your-state-protect-payday-loan-borrowers">more than 250% in some states</a>. </p>
<p>Payday loans also come due in full so quickly that around three in four borrowers <a href="https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2012/07/19/who-borrows-where-they-borrow-and-why">end up borrowing again</a> to pay off the original loan.</p>
<p>If consumers could better anticipate how much money they will spend in the future, it might help motivate them to spend less and save more in the present. </p>
<p>In fact, one of our studies shows that our suggested prediction strategy <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243721106802">not only boosted spending estimates</a>, it also increased intentions to save.</p>
<h2>What’s next</h2>
<p>Members of our research team are currently investigating if, when and why underpredicting one’s expenses may be beneficial. For example, if a person sets an optimistically low budget and actively tracks their spending against it, does that help them reduce their spending? </p>
<p>We are also investigating whether people who work in the gig economy show a corresponding tendency to mispredict their future income.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/189100/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors received funding for this research from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>David J. Hardisty receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Abigail Sussman and Marcel Lukas do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Understanding why people underpredict expenses could help them budget more accurately – and even encourage them to save more money.Ray Charles "Chuck" Howard, Assistant Professor of Marketing, Texas A&M UniversityAbigail Sussman, Professor of Marketing, University of ChicagoDavid J. Hardisty, Assistant Professor of Marketing & Behavioral Science, University of British ColumbiaMarcel Lukas, Lecturer in Banking and Finance, University of St AndrewsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1599612021-04-29T16:08:21Z2021-04-29T16:08:21ZBoris Johnson’s Downing Street refurbishment: might a law have been broken?<p>The Electoral Commission has announced that Boris Johnson, the, erm, prime minister of the United Kingdom, is under investigation. Well, to be precise, the Commission will investigate whether any transactions relating to refurbishment undertaken at Johnson’s flat are an offence under political financing law. In fact, in its official statement, the Commission suggested that there are “reasonable grounds to suspect an offence or offences may have occurred”. But what has actually happened here? What are the laws that might have been broken? And why is it a problem anyway?</p>
<p>The row begins, as will be all too familiar in homes across the globe, with a bit of good old-fashioned DIY. Every prime minister gets £30,000 a year in public money to renovate their private residence. The accusation laid at the door of Johnson and fiancée Carrie Symonds is that their works came in at <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56878663?at_custom2=twitter&at_campaign=64&at_custom1=%255Bpost+type%255D&at_custom4=twitter&at_custom3=%2540BBCPolitics&at_medium=custom7">as much as £200,000</a>.</p>
<p>This wasn’t an issue until the prime minister’s former adviser Dominic Cummings entered the fray. He launched a <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56863547">blistering attack</a> suggesting that Johnson planned to have donors (most notably <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/apr/27/lord-david-brownlow-tory-donor-paid-no-10-refurbishment-boris-johnson">Lord David Brownlow</a>) “secretly pay” for the refurbishment. Adding that it was “unethical, foolish, possibly illegal and almost certainly broke the rules on proper disclosure of political donations if conducted in the way he intended”.</p>
<h2>What are the rules?</h2>
<p>So if it was (possibly) illegal and did break the rules, <a href="https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/sites/default/files/2021-01/Donations%20and%20loans%20guidance%20for%20regulated%20donees%20in%20Great%20Britain.pdf">what are those rules in the first place</a>? In the main, it is an issue of disclosure. Any donation of over £7,500 to a party or £1,500 to an MP must be declared to the Electoral Commission within 30 days. This rule applies to money that is loaned and also applies to lots of donations that might not look like a simple cash transfer.</p>
<p>So, if you buy an MP a photocopier, if you sponsor meetings and events, if you do paid research, or, indeed, if you provide £58,000 (either as a loan or otherwise) to decorate their house, it needs to be declared. This is the crux of the rule that may or may not have been broken and the questions that the Electoral Commission will put to Johnson and his associates. </p>
<p>Johnson insists that he has paid for the renovations with his own money but continues to evade questions about whether Lord David Brownlow paid for them in the first instance before being repaid. If the money was donated (or loaned) by Lord Brownlow either to Johnson or his party and it wasn’t declared in a timely manner, then electoral law has been broken. There are, of course, legislative complexities but, at the end of the day, it’s as simple as that.</p>
<h2>What happens next?</h2>
<p>A long investigation lies ahead to get to the bottom of this matter. In terms of outcome, the sanctions the Electoral Commission can hand down are small. It can issue a maximum fine of £20,000 and involve the police if further laws are deemed to have been broken. However, the political damage could be vast.</p>
<p>As well as having (not all that punitive) sanctioning powers, the Commission also has significant investigatory powers. It can call on anyone it likes to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/apr/28/how-much-trouble-is-boris-johnson-in-maybe-quite-a-lot">give evidence</a>. That might include Symonds, cabinet secretary Simon Case and/or Lord Brownlow. It can subpoena private WhatsApp messages, emails and other evidence and – <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7345281/Electoral-Commission-accused-anti-Brexit-bias-raiding-Farages-party-HQ.html">as the Brexit Party discovered</a> – visit party offices for more information if needed.</p>
<p>The investigation, then, which will run and run, has the potential to be as damaging as any sanctions that might come from it.</p>
<h2>99 problems, of which a kitchen is one?</h2>
<p>Beyond the legal, there is also the question of tone. In general, no one will deny a prime minister the right to do up the flat that they live in. But defending that right in itself leads to rather awkward situations that can make those in power seem pretty out of touch.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gzNAeFSqOyI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Johnson comes unstuck over his wallpaper in PMQs.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>MPs found this during the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/may/13/mps-expenses-houseofcommons">expenses scandal of 2009</a>, when their claims for lavish decor created the sense that their idea of reasonable costs were far removed from those of the wider public. In this case, one particularly out-of-touch contribution came from Daily Mail columnist Sarah Vine, wife of Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove, who reminded us that the prime minister <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/we-cant-expect-pm-to-live-in-a-skip-insists-michael-goves-wife-sarah-vine-rxs3505zp">“can’t be expected to live in a skip”</a>. </p>
<p>“Cash for curtains” is also damaging because it is happening at the same time as numerous inquiries into other potential scandals <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56813196">surrounding lobbying</a>. A drip-feed of revelations has raised significant questions about standards and ethics in public life – and left many with the sense that these are not things the current administration has all that much interest in.</p>
<p>However, there is, as yet, limited evidence of the all-important <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/5d2e7434-a6b0-11eb-b000-cc13f23b4eff?shareToken=e903b1fe5964c55b5c5e90aff27549ab">“public cut through”</a>. The law is complex, and very few people really want to get stuck in to the minutiae of regulating donations. Are MPs inboxes filling up in the same way as they did in the wake of Cummings’ trip to <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-asked-people-if-they-were-breaking-lockdown-rules-before-and-after-the-dominic-cummings-scandal-heres-what-they-told-us-139994">Barnard Castle</a>? <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/apr/28/how-much-trouble-is-boris-johnson-in-maybe-quite-a-lot">Apparently not</a>, yet.</p>
<p>Moreover, mud doesn’t seem to stick to Johnson as easily as it does other politicians. He is no stranger to issues with regards to personal standards of good behaviour and yet continues to be popular. All this may be priced in for voters. </p>
<p>However, we know that things can snowball rather quickly, as they seem to be doing at present. I often think of Johnson’s predecessor, David Cameron – and his rather abrupt downfall – in situations like this. Remember, he was known as the <a href="https://capx.co/this-referendum-may-be-an-essay-crisis-too-far-for-david-cameron/">“essay crisis”</a> prime minister. He would always, somehow, get out of a sticky situation at the last minute. Then, one day, he didn’t.</p>
<p>So, whilst you might not bet your house on it being curtains for Boris just yet – the snowball is getting bigger and bigger. And it is rolling towards Downing Street at quite a skip now.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/159961/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sam Power has received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.</span></em></p>The Electoral Commission says there are “reasonable grounds to suspect an offence or offences may have occurred”.Sam Power, Lecturer in Corruption Analysis (Politics), University of SussexLicensed 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/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/449302015-07-22T01:14:53Z2015-07-22T01:14:53ZCan Bronwyn Bishop learn anything from the UK expenses scandal?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/89250/original/image-20150721-20173-cq1ty8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Expenses scandals like Bronwyn Bishop's can have a devastating effect on parliament and on trust in the political system.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The recent revelations about Speaker Bronwyn Bishop’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-much-public-outrage-can-tony-abbott-wear-for-bronwyn-bishop-44853">expenses claims</a> have caused something of a furore in Australian politics. Financial scandals are somewhat par for the course in parliamentary politics. They can have a devastating effect on parliament and on trust in the political system, as the UK’s parliamentary expenses scandal of 2009 showed. </p>
<p>So what can Australia learn from the UK’s experience?</p>
<h2>What was the UK’s expenses scandal?</h2>
<p>The UK scandal began when a Telegraph journalist submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act to view all MPs’ expenses claims and receipts. MPs were highly resistant to the publication of these documents. After a battle that went all the way to the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7404031.stm">High Court</a> and a decision by parliament to try to specifically protect MPs from the Freedom of Information Act, the details of four years’ worth of expenses claims were leaked to The Telegraph. </p>
<p>The newspaper published the most juicy details in small bursts over the next few weeks, attracting more than half-a-million <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/may/20/telegraph-mps-expenses-circulation">new readers</a> in the process. </p>
<p>More and more revelations appeared – even then-prime minister Gordon Brown wasn’t immune. In particular, it came to light that several MPs were “flipping” their second homes, claiming for mortgages on homes that didn’t exist, or paying rent to wives, sisters and other family members. </p>
<p>Other expenses were much more minor and often bordered on the bizarre. Stalwart Tory MP Sir Peter Viggers famously tried to claim for a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/may/23/mps-expenses-conservatives">floating duck house</a> in his pond. </p>
<p>The revelations continued for more than a year and weren’t contained within parliament. Following the general election in May 2010, David Laws, the newly appointed chief secretary to the Treasury, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/7783687/David-Laws-resigns-over-expenses-claim.html">resigned</a> after reports that he had been claiming expenses for <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/7780642/MPs-Expenses-Treasury-chief-David-Laws-his-secret-lover-and-a-40000-claim.html">renting a room</a> in a house owned by his partner.</p>
<h2>Was the Speaker implicated?</h2>
<p>There are some interesting parallels not only between the two political systems, but also between the two Speakers. At the time of the UK expenses scandal, the House of Commons Speaker was former Labour MP Michael Martin. </p>
<p>Like Bishop, Martin was a controversial figure, accused of being <a href="http://www.express.co.uk/expressyourself/101336/Is-Michael-Martin-incompetent-greedy-and-shameless">too partisan</a>. And, just like his Australian counterpart, he found himself in hot water over his travel expenses when it was revealed that he had spent £1400 on <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5298316/Michael-Martin-Speaker-spent-1400-on-chauffeurs-to-his-local-job-centre-and-Celtic-Park.html">chauffeur-driven cars</a>. </p>
<p>Martin was already seen to be a particularly lavish Speaker. It was reported the previous year that £1.7 million of taxpayers’ money had been spent refurbishing his <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/1583227/Michael-Martins-home-gets-1.7m-makeover.html">official parliamentary residence</a>. </p>
<p>What made things even worse was that Martin had so vigorously tried to block members’ expenses claims being published in the first place. Support for him in the House of Commons soon began to wear thin, with <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/may/17/nick-clegg-speaker-michael-martin">party leaders</a> calling for his resignation. He was <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8054657.stm">openly challenged</a> by MPs in the chamber, who called for a vote of no confidence in his tenure as Speaker.</p>
<h2>Was simply paying back the money acceptable?</h2>
<p>Bishop has repaid the money for the helicopter travel, though many question whether <a href="http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/sorry-but-bronwyn-bishop-hasnt-apologised-for-unacceptable-actions-20150721-gigsl7.html">this is enough</a>.</p>
<p>The UK’s experience was very similar. MPs were quick to offer to repay the money. Then-opposition leader David Cameron publicly announced that all Conservative MPs found to have made false or inappropriate claims would <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/may/12/mps-expenses-david-cameron-conservatives">pay back the money</a>. </p>
<p>The claims of all MPs were later audited by an independent panel led by Sir Thomas Legg, which <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8493634.stm">found</a> that more than half of all MPs had made either dishonest or simply incorrect claims. It ordered them to pay back a whopping <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1248422/Sir-Thomas-Legg-orders-MPs-repay-1-3million-overclaimed-expenses.html">£1.3 million</a>. This included Brown, who was instructed to <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/12/gordon-brown-repay-mps-expenses">repay £12,000</a>. </p>
<p>Many questioned the system as, just like Bishop now, they felt that they had acted within the rules that existed at the time. Paying back retrospectively seemed unfair.</p>
<h2>What happened in the end?</h2>
<p>Martin was one of the earliest casualties. Only a couple of weeks after the first expenses bombshells had hit the papers, he announced he would <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5350083/MPs-expenses-Speaker-Michael-Martin-announces-his-resignation.html">resign</a> from his position the following month. He later stood down as MP too. </p>
<p>But, in the long term, Martin was one of the more fortunate ones. Many more MPs resigned from their frontbench roles and retired at the 2010 election. Those found to have made fraudulent claims, such as <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25492017">Denis MacShane</a>, were not only made to pay back the money, but were handed <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/8776160/Expenses-MPs-and-their-sentences-how-long-each-served.html">prison sentences</a> too. </p>
<p>The expenses scandal led to the creation of the <a href="http://parliamentarystandards.org.uk/Pages/default.aspx">Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority</a> (IPSA), which took over the regulation and policing of MPs’ expenses as well as their pay. </p>
<p>MPs themselves became much more transparent about what they were spending and why. IPSA publishes their claims online every couple of months, and parliament also publishes the Speaker’s <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/offices/commons/speakers-office/speakers-publications/foi-request-on-speakers-expenditure/">travel and expenses claims</a>. MPs are much more careful and some – like Conservative Philip Hollobone – revel in being among the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/5104564/Meet-Westminsters-cheapest-MP-Philip-Hollobone.html">most thrifty MPs</a>. </p>
<p>These are all welcome moves in the right direction, but there is little evidence that they have made a difference to the widespread public anger about MPs’ pay and expenses. Trust in our representatives remains very low. This, rather than whether Bishop has <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/comment/sorry-but-bronwyn-bishop-hasnt-apologised-for-unacceptable-actions-20150721-gigsl7">genuinely apologised</a>, is what Australian politicians should be worried about right now.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44930/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Louise Thompson 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>During the UK’s parliamentary expenses scandal, many questioned the system as – just like Bronwyn Bishop in Australia now – they felt that they had acted within the rules that existed at the time.Louise Thompson, Lecturer in British Politics, University of SurreyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/385642015-03-10T16:26:28Z2015-03-10T16:26:28ZTory uses dodgy calculations to argue MPs need £225,000 a year<p>Conservative politician Adam Afriyie has made his contribution to the debate about parliamentarians living far from reality by proclaiming that it is “almost impossible to operate on the salary that is given to MPs if you come from a middle-income family”.</p>
<p>This comes after a scandal that saw senior parliamentarians Jack Straw and Malcolm Rifkind peddling their influence for cash. Rifkind argued that he couldn’t possibly get by on his <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cash-for-access-scandal-sir-malcolm-rifkind-says-unrealistic-for-mps-to-live-on-67000-10064438.html">£67,000 income</a>. </p>
<p>Afriyie’s claim is arguable in principle and desperately unwise in practice as far as public trust goes. During an interview with <a href="http://www.chatpolitics.org/portfolio/adam-afriyie/">Chat Politics</a> he suggested that members of parliament should be compensated to the tune of £225,000. This is the figure he arrived at by uprating the first salary paid to MPs in 1911 – which was £400 – to today’s prices.</p>
<p>Afriyie used an online tool called <a href="http://www.measuringworth.com/ukcompare/relativevalue.php">Measuring Worth</a> to make his calculations but even this gives only a ballpark figure. In fact, the tool suggests that £400 in 1911 money would be valued anywhere between £35,540 and £284,500. Afriyie appears to have opted to look to the higher end of the scale when appealing for more money.</p>
<p>Either way, in 1911 the average industrial worker’s wage was £250 – just over half an MP’s salary; today it is <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10173107/MPs-pay-rise-how-politicians-pay-has-risen-quicker-than-the-workers.html">rather less</a> than half of MPs’ current take-home pay.</p>
<p>Comparisons over time like this are notoriously difficult to make in a meaningful way. I did my own calculations using the <a href="http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/currency/">National Archives Currency Converter</a> and came up with £22,800 in 2005 prices for £400 in 1910 prices. That gives us an outcome much nearer to the average income of constituents – and a significant pay cut for the MPs.</p>
<p>In Afryie’s defence it might be argued that he also proposed that expenses should be subsumed into this larger salary for MPs. But this and his apparent decimal error betray the real problem.</p>
<p>MPs such as Afriyie appear to think that £225,000 is an ordinary sum of money, and regard their current pay – which weighs in at well over twice the national average income – as inadequate. They also draw no distinction between expenses and pay.</p>
<p>How many times have defensive MPs like <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MrFV4c_sVY">Eric Pickles</a> insisted that their expenses claims are legitimate because they “put the hours in”? The expenses regime should be much more generous and rigorous to match those in other democratic countries. It is for costs legitimately incurred in representing constituents; the salary is for the hours of work.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74318/original/image-20150310-13564-44j7p0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74318/original/image-20150310-13564-44j7p0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74318/original/image-20150310-13564-44j7p0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74318/original/image-20150310-13564-44j7p0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74318/original/image-20150310-13564-44j7p0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74318/original/image-20150310-13564-44j7p0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74318/original/image-20150310-13564-44j7p0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74318/original/image-20150310-13564-44j7p0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">1911: Plenty of money to pay MPs, apparently not so much for cleaners.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Rifkind <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cash-for-access-scandal-sir-malcolm-rifkind-says-unrealistic-for-mps-to-live-on-67000-10064438.html">defended his position</a> on MPs’ pay by arguing that only by offering high salaries can parliament attract quality representatives. But that is not why MPs were originally paid. The original idea in 1911 was to make it possible for those who could not afford it independently to represent their fellow citizens. It was not to attract those who are already well-resourced away from work they prefer.</p>
<p>MPs have already awarded themselves a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29098334">9% pay rise</a> this session. Some continue to offer apologias or mitigation for MPs seeking extra sums “under the radar” like Straw because they feel impoverished and even, with Rifkind, claim they do not receive a salary at all.</p>
<p>In August last year Mark Simmonds, the Foreign Office minister responsible for Africa, resigned saying that he couldn’t keep his family on the £110,000 he (and, as his secretary, his wife) received from public funds.</p>
<p>That a Parliament full of people accustomed to high incomes fails to recognise smaller sums of money is not surprising. That intelligent MPs have not learnt the lessons of the expenses scandal is more disturbing.</p>
<p>Afriyie, as it happens, is already a multi-millionaire who continues to receive multiples of his MP’s salary as a company director. The comparatively modest wages of his day job do not seem to have weakened his widely-rumoured <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jan/31/adam-afriyie-pm-in-waiting">ambitions within the Conservative Party</a>.</p>
<p>Everything from surveys of public opinion to party membership figures to election results and turnout tells us that the public remains somewhere between sceptical and angry towards the established parties as a group.</p>
<p>The Hansard Society’s annual <a href="http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Audit-of-Political-Engagement-11-2014.pdf">Audit of Political Engagement</a> showed by 2012 that voter confidence in the political system and likelihood of voting had dropped to their lowest levels in the ten-year history of the audit.</p>
<p>Recent events will only have served to persuade the public they are right in their suspicions about the political class. The remuneration of MPs may need amendment, in one direction or the other; but their public relations need much more urgent work.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38564/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Cole is a Visiting Fellow of the Hansard Society</span></em></p>Multi-millionaire Adam Afriyie think he’s worth a lot more than you pay him.Matthew Cole, Teaching Fellow, Department of History, University of BirminghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/252872014-04-09T13:33:29Z2014-04-09T13:33:29ZMiller resigns, but keeping MPs honest is still a messy business<p>The former culture secretary, Maria Miller, is the latest in a series of MPs to have been caught up in an expenses controversy. The issue of what parliamentarians do with their allowances has now embarrassed or damaged a great many MPs, from <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/12/gordon-brown-repay-mps-expenses">Gordon Brown</a> downwards. In a few cases, as with Miller, it has led to resignations. It has also, for a few, led to <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/8776160/Expenses-MPs-and-their-sentences-how-long-each-served.html">prison</a>.</p>
<p>Since the first revelations in the Daily Telegraph in <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5324582/How-the-Telegraph-investigation-exposed-the-MPs-expenses-scandal-day-by-day.html">May 2009</a>, which saw parliament <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8057203.stm">lose its speaker</a>, there has been a continual flow of expenses-related stories. In 2011 Liberal Democrat MP <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/liberal-democrat-mps-expenses/8508349/David-Laws-suspended-over-pages-of-expenses-claims.html">David Laws</a> resigned; in 2012 Labour MP <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/9651978/MPs-expenses-scandal-Denis-MacShane-resigns.html">Denis MacShane</a> stepped down (and was later imprisoned); and in 2013, George Osborne (and many others) were exposed over their use of first-class train tickets. </p>
<p>In parallel, there were rows over the MPs’ <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-in-line-for-20000-pay-rise-in-move-likely-to-spark-public-anger-8622556.html">pay rise</a> and the <a href="http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2010/07/mps-expenses-david-cameron-takes-on-ipsa/">continued existence</a> of IPSA, the independent regulator. Scrutiny of allowances has also been seen in local government, the police and even universities. But expenses revelations don’t always end in resignation or prison. What makes each case different?</p>
<h2>How it gets out</h2>
<p>The first difference is how someone is found out. The chain of accountability is often complicated. Just after the scandal, David Cameron himself <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8119047.stm">said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>What the Daily Telegraph did – the simple act of providing information to the public – has triggered the biggest shake-up of our political system. It is information – not a new law, not some regulation – just the provision of information that has enabled people to take on the political class, demand answers and get those answers.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Actually, finding the information can be trickier than it looks. Far from being a “simple” story of “information provision”, the expenses scandal is a great example of how difficult it can be to bring information to light. </p>
<p>The FOI request for a selection of MPs’ expenses was <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/may/15/mps-expenses-heather-brooke-foi">first made in 2005</a>. It then took a four-year campaign by journalists using FOI laws, the FOI appeal system and then the courts. The information was finally released by a very old-fashioned mode of disclosure: a leak. Interestingly, according to the original Telegraph story, Miller’s expenses problems appear to have stemmed from a well-placed <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/9743909/Maria-Miller-expenses-Telegraphs-side-of-the-story.html">tip-off</a> rather than detailed public scrutiny.</p>
<p>The next step, “demanding answers”, can be just as difficult. Once information is disclosed, holding the MP in question to account requires the right context and environment. The level of media interest and the “amount” of wrong done determines how any scandal unfolds, and what (if any) price the politician pays.</p>
<h2>Who did it?</h2>
<p>The second factor is, of course, the individual politician involved. Who the politician is, how they react, and the media and public view are all crucial. George Osborne was unlikely to suffer more than blushes over his minor <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20008342">train ticket kerfuffle</a>, and was very well protected. It may even have helped that he had history of previous minor “slip-ups”. Miller’s situation was far more precarious. Her very brief <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2014/apr/03/maria-miller-expenses-apology-video">first apology</a> and apparent attempts to “<a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100266788/maria-millers-leveson-threat-not-her-expenses-is-why-she-must-go/">influence</a>” the press and commissioner worsened the situation. Her actions lost the support of the party; just as importantly, her position at the centre of the Leveson reforms made her unpopular (to say the least) with large swathes of the press.</p>
<p>Five years on from the storm of 2009, the expenses issue continues to bubble away under the surface of Westminster politics, occasionally bursting to the top unpredictably as the result of leaks, tip-offs or assiduous research and throwing up sudden squalls of varying ferocity.</p>
<p>When controversy reappears, the exact effect depends on many things: how the information was obtained, how it is then used and who it relates to. The only certainty is that we haven’t heard the last of expenses yet.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/25287/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Worthy 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 former culture secretary, Maria Miller, is the latest in a series of MPs to have been caught up in an expenses controversy. The issue of what parliamentarians do with their allowances has now embarrassed…Ben Worthy, Lecturer in Politics , Birkbeck, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/254502014-04-09T10:02:32Z2014-04-09T10:02:32ZDear Maria Miller, it really wasn’t all your fault<p>The news that Maria Miller decided to <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/09/maria-miller-quits-culture-secretary-david-cameron">resign as culture secretary</a> was not really much of a surprise. The only real surprise was the way that she had seemed to be toughing out the media feeding frenzy and the gradual, but very clear, loss of political support for so long. And yet beyond the sensational headlines the real – and arguably more important issues – remain unexamined. </p>
<p>Politics is a rough and sometimes brutal business. I’m sure that this morning Maria Miller is more aware than most of this fact but it seems too obvious, slightly too clean and simple, to blame just one person for a political saga that has rolled on for some time. In order to learn from this affair it is necessary to step back and examine the bigger picture in order to reveal where blame really lies. Indeed, what this less personalised account reveals is a set of blame-games at three levels. </p>
<p>At the first and most obvious level, Miller really was to blame; if not for the incorrect claiming of expenses, certainly for appearing to <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2014/apr/03/maria-miller-expenses-apology-video">treat the House with contempt</a>. This is a critical point. Politicians at Westminster – irrespective of their party – will generally tolerate many failings and indiscretions on the part of their colleagues, but standing up in the chamber and giving such a brief and curt apology was a terrible error. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lHb3NTKZJek?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Sorry seems to be the hardest word.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And yet Miller’s general attitude to the whole investigation over her expenses seems to have been generally dismissive. The Commons Standards Committee <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/conservative-mps-expenses/10746387/Maria-Millers-behaviour-is-shocking-claims-former-chairman-of-Standards-Committee.html">criticised her attitude</a> during their investigation, which it ruled was a breach of the parliamentary code of conduct. But why would a member of the cabinet adopt an approach that was almost designed to ruffle feathers and prolong and investigation? Humble pie might not taste very nice but sometimes it needs to be eaten whether you believe you are hungry or not. </p>
<p>I can’t help wondering what her ministerial aides and advisers – her spin doctors – were whispering into her ear as she adopted such a strident approach to the issue of her expenses. </p>
<h2>System is broken</h2>
<p>Although far less sensational – and therefore by modern media standards less newsworthy – the bigger issue in the “blame game” that needs to be unravelled is not so much “Media Maria” or her team, but the whole issue of <a href="http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/04/will-reforms-to-self-regulation-of-mps-be-enough-to-distract-from-miller-row/">parliamentary self-regulation</a>. The principle that MPs should make the final decision over the disciplining of their errant colleagues has been stretched to breaking point and it seems hardly fair to blame Miller for the outcome of a self-regulatory system that has been the source of ridicule and concern for some time. </p>
<p>The system is to blame for much of the chaos and confusion that has surrounded the former culture secretary. The big question does not relate to Miller, or how £45,000 became £5,800, but to how we stop this situation happening again. Self-regulation is incredibly tricky, for the simple reason that not only must justice be done but it must also be seen to be done – and the public simply do not trust politicians in this sense. It really is as simple as that. And yet the relationship between MPs and the <a href="http://www.parliamentary-standards.org.uk/">Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority</a> remains at a simmering heat and the idea of giving the parliamentary watchdog increased powers is unlikely to attract support within the house. “Create a new body!” I hear the readers cry, but this in itself creates new challenges over appointments, control, legitimacy and control. But something needs to be done.</p>
<p>So, Mrs Miller … Maria (if I may), it really wasn’t all your fault. I have no idea about the advice you received from your ministerial aides and advisers, but in many ways it doesn’t matter as you’ll all fall from grace together. You were, however, a victim of a system that has let everyone down. Your resignation is not a triumph for democracy or a victory for the media, but yet another example of the need to drag parliament into the 21st century</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/25450/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Flinders 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 news that Maria Miller decided to resign as culture secretary was not really much of a surprise. The only real surprise was the way that she had seemed to be toughing out the media feeding frenzy and…Matthew Flinders, Founding Director of the Sir Bernard Crick Centre for the Public Understanding of Politics , University of SheffieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/253972014-04-09T05:13:01Z2014-04-09T05:13:01ZMaria Miller’s downfall shows how personal British politics has become<p>Maria Miller has resigned as Culture secretary. Until today, she was one of the most powerful women in the Conservative Party; she has been described as “<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26910173">efficient and low-key</a>”, and rapidly climbed the ranks since she was first elected in 2005. But she’s now the victim of a political storm over an investigation into her parliamentary expenses, originally publicised in a Daily Telegraph article in <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/9743909/Maria-Miller-expenses-Telegraphs-side-of-the-story.html">December 2012</a>. </p>
<p>So, what is the substance of the controversy? What is its significance for Miller and the government? And what does it tell us about the importance of public probity in today’s politics?</p>
<p>Miller’s problems arose over what was alleged to have been a breach of the rules in force between 2005 and 2009, when her questionable expenses claims were made. In essence, MPs were at the time allowed to claim back the costs of having to maintain a second home near Westminster so they could more easily perform their parliamentary duties.</p>
<p>Miller was cleared of having abused the system to advantage her parents, but did find that she had made unjustified mortgage interest claims, and recommended that the minister <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/conservative-mps-expenses/10746022/Maria-Miller-expenses-report-rights-and-wrongs-of-ministers-claims.html">repay £45,000</a>. The recommendations were then passed for decision, to the House of Commons <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/standards/news/press-notice-about-the-maria-miller-report/">Committee for Standards</a>, which reduced the repayments required to £5,800.</p>
<p>The committee also deemed Miller to have broken the MPs’ code of conduct by being less than co-operative with the commissioner’s investigations, demanding an apology to the House – an apology which, when made in the houses of Parliament, was widely deemed <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/07/maria-miller-expenses-row-apology">inadequate both in substance and length</a> (32 seconds). </p>
<p>Miller found herself at the heart of a classic scandal, a power struggle revolving around her reputation for honesty and integrity (a vital source of political power). As in any scandal, her fate was decided not by the empirical facts of the case than by the turn of public opinion – the universal currency of democratic politics. </p>
<h2>Personality politics</h2>
<p>When a public figure of Miller’s stature is accused of wrongdoing, the outcome is hardly inevitable. Public opinion hinges on perceptions of the accuser, their motives in making the allegation, and how believable the allegations are. Opinions will also depend on perceptions of the alleged wrongdoer, their motives in acting the way they supposedly did, the extent to which they could have acted differently, the repercussions of their action, and so forth. </p>
<p>Miller’s present predicament is a coda to the 2009 expenses scandal and the universal condemnation of the behaviour revealed five years ago. Given these circumstances, one might have expected her reaction and apology to have been somewhat more circumspect.</p>
<p>Ultimately, Miller’s problems are not just her own. David Cameron stood by her, but he would have been all too aware that he and his government have a lot to lose in the run-up to next month’s European elections. Parties such as UKIP have been fuelled not just by the specific issue of Europe, but more significantly by the spread of anti-political sentiments and growing disenchantment with established politics and politicians in general.</p>
<p>This episode is a telling demonstration of the importance of probity in 21st-century politics. There seems little doubt that public concerns have been growing in recent years; survey data, media reports and the growing volume of government initiatives all betray a growing level of public anxiety about the integrity of public office holders since the early 1990s. </p>
<p>The causes help throw light on the consequences. The post-Cold War lack of deep-seated ideological conflict between left and right has shifted the terrain of political conflict to valence issues. The personal qualities of the individual politicians who will deal with those issues have therefore assumed centre stage, while the explosion of the mass media has made their lives more visible than ever. </p>
<p>In today’s extremely personalised and mediated politics, parties increasingly attempt to compete with each other by throwing mud and attempting to damage each other by fomenting scandal – a phenomenon that Benjamin Ginsberg and Martin Shefter have called “<a href="http://www.brucesabin.com/politics_by_other_means.html">politics by other means</a>”. And arising as it did from a complaint by an opposition MP, the Miller affair is a classic example.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/25397/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Newell 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>Maria Miller has resigned as Culture secretary. Until today, she was one of the most powerful women in the Conservative Party; she has been described as “efficient and low-key”, and rapidly climbed the…James Newell, Professor of Politics, University of SalfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/190392013-10-10T07:18:40Z2013-10-10T07:18:40ZAllowances or open entitlements? When politicians play and taxpayers pay<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32791/original/dqwp83hs-1381377017.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Parliament provides allowances to assist members and senators carry out their duties but should it include going to the football?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP Image/David Crosling</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Federal politicians can rack up relatively large bills in going about their day-to-day duties. In the last six months of 2012, Julia Gillard had allowances <a href="http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/parliamentarians-reporting/docs/P31/GILLARD_Julia.pdf">totalling A$647,000</a> – that’s nearly three times her annual salary. Tony Abbott recorded <a href="http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/parliamentarians-reporting/docs/P31/ABBOTT_Tony.pdf">$530,000</a>, Wayne Swan cost <a href="http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/parliamentarians-reporting/docs/P31/SWAN_Wayne.pdf">$545,000</a> and Julie Bishop a cool <a href="http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/parliamentarians-reporting/docs/P31/BISHOP_Julie.pdf">$390,000</a>. </p>
<p>Parliament provides these allowances to assist members and senators to carry out their duties as elected representatives in their constituencies. They can claim for legitimate “costs” of doing their work effectively and taxpayers meet the bill. </p>
<p>But parliamentarians often refer to these allowances as “entitlements” – as the covering statute is entitled – implying they are entitled to spend these amounts, which are paid on top of generous salaries, often without capping limits on their usage. </p>
<p>So what are they entitled to, and why the confusion? </p>
<h2>What are allowances for?</h2>
<p>In previous times (decades ago) politicians did not have large entitlement allowances. Their travel to the parliament (federal or state) was usually arranged by the parliamentary staff (rail historically, then flights), and they may have had a small electoral office and a limited budget for mail or landline phones. </p>
<p>But as time went on, the range of allowances was extended to include a whole series of tangible benefits to members – including daily expenses, travel allowances, overnight accommodation, domestic and overseas travel, use of Commonwealth cars, electoral vehicles, hire cars, taxis or subsidised private vehicles, and even unlimited flags and national symbols. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32792/original/qb4372vv-1381377898.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32792/original/qb4372vv-1381377898.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32792/original/qb4372vv-1381377898.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32792/original/qb4372vv-1381377898.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32792/original/qb4372vv-1381377898.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32792/original/qb4372vv-1381377898.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32792/original/qb4372vv-1381377898.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In the last six months of 2012, Julie Bishop had expenses totalling $385,000.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dan Humbrechts </span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Reviewing the generosity of allowances may not turn out as we might expect. In fact, when reviews of allowances are undertaken they often justify increasing various amounts because of rising expectations about the extent of activity the public might expect, such as representation at overseas functions or fora.</p>
<h2>What are the rules?</h2>
<p>The rules governing allowances are set down (in law) and are fairly prescriptive in terms of types of allowance and what activities can be claimed: domestic or overseas travel, cars, charter travel, office and administrative costs, telecommunications expenses and purchase of goods and services. </p>
<p>The rules are relatively transparent, require receipts for reimbursement, and are sometimes very prescriptive (members, for instance, cannot claim overnight expenses if scheduled meetings finish three hours before the last flight), and sometimes with fixed annual limits (such as basic <a href="http://maps.finance.gov.au/entitlements_handbooks/senators-and-members/Part_Two_Salary_-_2.2_Electorate_Allowance.asp">electoral allowances</a>, which range from $32,000 to A$46,000). </p>
<p>Since the late 1990s, the rules have been administered by a special section within the Department of Finance – the ministerial and parliamentary services division. It processes claims that are made by ministers and parliamentarians (or their private offices), and can if requested provide “advice”. </p>
<p>But it is not really an arbiter of what is appropriate – and so far as I can discern, only the Remuneration Tribunal can make definitive decisions about the legality or otherwise of proposed claims.</p>
<p>But parliamentarians are notoriously frugal and some are very tight; they’re not averse to getting the taxpayer to pay for their indulgences. </p>
<p>And given recent media coverage some are sailing close to the wind in creatively making claims about their political business. Recognition of this weakness by parliamentarians themselves has led to a rejection of any proposal that oversight should be handled within the legislative rather than executive (within the Department of Finance). </p>
<h2>Why the uncertainty?</h2>
<p>One of the problems with the present system is that there is no clear definition of what is and what isn’t “parliamentary business” or politicians exercising their rights to interact with their constituents or the wider community. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32793/original/smv4vk92-1381378168.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32793/original/smv4vk92-1381378168.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32793/original/smv4vk92-1381378168.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32793/original/smv4vk92-1381378168.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32793/original/smv4vk92-1381378168.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32793/original/smv4vk92-1381378168.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32793/original/smv4vk92-1381378168.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Kevin Rudd enjoys a ‘community engagement’</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Going into a pub and shouting drinks can be a community engagement; spruiking a book you have written around the country can be communicating your message to the electorate. Buying books you are interested in owning as a reader can be seen as informing a politician. </p>
<p>Taking holidays to the snow or sunny climes, or visiting desirable foreign cities, can be classified under the nomenclature “parliamentary study tour” to broaden the mind. Many state politicians take regular holidays at taxpayers’ expense and put in silly half-page “report” on what they have discovered (one once remarked that sandwiches were bigger in one state he visited than his home state!).</p>
<p>In one sense, what politicians claim is largely made up of institutional costs: running electoral offices and necessary travel to parliament and so on. But other areas are grey and left open to interpretation, especially optional travel, attendances at sporting or cultural events, purchases of goods or publications, and hospitality. </p>
<p>Where the line falls between personal expenses and parliamentary business is very much down to their own discretion. And unless challenged by the Tribunal, any claims made will be paid within the stipulated limits. </p>
<p>The public could be forgiven for believing that if a politician got away with one bogus claim, it would only encourage them to make even more outrageous claims – and there was not much sanction if caught out or exposed (repayment of the disputed amount). </p>
<p>And if both sides, or all parties, are at fault there is no mileage in exposing one’s opponents for fear of retribution, with notable exceptions when vengeance over-rides consideration of consistent leniency – as in the Slipper case.</p>
<h2>So, what’s the solution?</h2>
<p>What else could we do to make the system better and less open to rorting? </p>
<p>Making the rules more prescriptive is one option but there are many eventualities to cover and rules can’t cover everything. </p>
<p>Another suggestion is to make politicians pay double if their claims are rejected – but relatively few actually are rejected given the lack of definitional precision. </p>
<p>Another is to pool funds to each party as they currently do with staff entitlements – so the party can prioritise their most preferred expenditures. </p>
<p>Yet another is to establish a specific oversight body. I doubt whether such a body would make all that difference – and could become compromised if it took a hard line against some marginal claims which could be justified (such as appearing at a sporting event). </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32790/original/ts7nmd5v-1381376956.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32790/original/ts7nmd5v-1381376956.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32790/original/ts7nmd5v-1381376956.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32790/original/ts7nmd5v-1381376956.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32790/original/ts7nmd5v-1381376956.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32790/original/ts7nmd5v-1381376956.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32790/original/ts7nmd5v-1381376956.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">When it comes to claiming expenses, there’s no real arbiter of what’s appropriate.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Paul Miller</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Schemes to allow politicians to transfer back into salary any residue in nominal allowances is prone to perverse behaviour and politicians hoarding resources.</p>
<p>So finding the appropriate balance is hard to do. Perhaps media spotlight is the best method of control providing the media regularly investigates and publicises excesses. </p>
<p>It’s interesting that many of the so-called abuses coming to light now are very old claims going back some years. The media at the time paid scant attention; and are perhaps only paying attention now when the adversarial politics of recent years has gone off the boil and they are bored with Abbott’s honeymoon period.</p>
<p>Don’t hold your breath over major reforms emanating from parliament on this issue – it is one of their juiciest privileges.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/19039/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Wanna 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>Federal politicians can rack up relatively large bills in going about their day-to-day duties. In the last six months of 2012, Julia Gillard had allowances totalling A$647,000 – that’s nearly three times…John Wanna, Sir John Bunting Chair of Public Administration , Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.