| What constitutes 'reasonable' travel claims? |
| MP will be reimbursed for travel expenses when directly connected with their role as a member of parliament |
| Actual costs incurred for air or road travel subject to; - |
| - travel by most direct route |
| - travel at lowest cost |
| - travel with approved carrier |
| - Business class (but not first class) |
| Actual out of pocket costs with supporting receipts subject to a per day limit of $1000, or $700 per day if claimed on a per diem basis when no receipts are required |
| Spouse/partner/family can accompany but any additional costs to be paid by MP |
| Where only a part of a trip is claimable as being a necessary part of MPs role, the reimbursement for carrier costs will be pro-rated for the proportion of travel which is claimable. The out-of-pocket costs will be for those full days which qualify as claimable Any claims which would breach these rules must be submitted and pre-approved in writing |
The above is a reprint from my earlier post Conflict of Interest and is only intended to demonstrate how a simple set of rules can set defined limits on the size and scope of MP travel claims.
However the clause 'directly connected with their role as a member of parliament' is open to some interpretation. So further work is required to clearly define what constitutes 'legitimate' MP travel.
Copyright(C)2015 Grappy's Soap Box, all rights reserved
No comments:
Post a Comment