Are secret Union deals simply extortion?

The TURC sittings this week have hardly raised a murmur in our 'distracted' press. I write 'distracted' but many other adjectives, unprofessional, feckless, irresponsible, incompetent, may be more suitable.

The statements of Thiess employees could be described as nothing less than bombshells casting asunder all of Bill Shorten's past testimony and the media's dismissal of smoking guns. What is more smoking than direct affirmation that the special 'side deals' were negotiated by Bill Shorten as secretary of the Victorian branch of the AWU. Deals whereby Thiess would make secret payments of large sums to the Union in exchange for industrial peace. 

It is all there. Secret payments for sham invoices for services which were never provided. Sham invoices paid in full paid by Thiess and money received by the AWU. Why was Thiess paying the AWU ? They were buying industrial peace. No doubt had the company not paid they believed they would have suffered industrial disruption. 

Lets check the definition of extortion and protection racquet; - 

Extortion is a criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. It is sometimes euphemistically referred to as a "protection racket" since the racketeers often phrase their demands as payment for "protection" from (real or hypothetical) threats from unspecified other parties.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion

Mmm. Do you see any similarity with the apparent modus operandum of the AWU in their deal with Thiess? It seems the Union acts like common racketeers obtaining money in exchange for providing 'protection' from industrial action, by, no doubt, its own members. This smells awfully like extortion!

Make no mistake this payment to the Union is in effect a benefit to the Union bosses, who use these fraudulent funds either for advancing their Union as it competes for members against other Unions, or for, let's call it 'private purposes'. Such as those derived, for example by the likes of Williamson, Thompson, Jackson and let me include Shorten.

A Union should never accept employer payments

There is a legitimate role for Unions in working on behalf of their members to improve working conditions, but when a Union accepts any payment directly from an employer in any form it is not just a 'conflict of interest', it is a crime. It is akin to 'demanding money with menaces', it is eliciting a bribe, it is extortion.

Where is the media?

The testimony by employers on the AWU fraud has been reported in the print media.

• SMH Oct 12, "Royal commission testimony: Invoices to Bill Shorten's AWU 'bogus' in EastLink union deal
• SMH Oct 13,Bill Shorten's AWU 'sold out' workers for $300,000
• SMH Oct 14, AWU 'sold out' over 36-hour week, union royal commission told
• The Australian Oct 15, "ALP leader Bill Shorten failing to escape AWU ‘fraud’ vortex

However most surprisingly; for much of this week, the commentariat seems to have been on holidays! Except for Skynews' Paul Murray Live, discussion or even mention of the TURC, or the AWU, has been strangely absent from news bulletins and political programs. I may have missed some, but I cannot recall any reference to what should be a politically explosive issue on any of the ABC's news bulletins or indeed AM, PM or 730 programs. Astoundingly selective reporting!

Even when mentioned, there is a tendency for the media to regard this type of practice as an occasional slip up of an individual Union or individual Unionist. However evidence at the TURC seems to indicate otherwise. We have seen these types of criminal 'deals' at the CFMEU, the HSU, and now at the AWU. It is very likely a widespread prctice.

It seems that most of our media media has avoided calling the Union's role in accepting direct payments from employers a crime. This is despite the clear evidence to the contrary. Is the media shying away from reporting on a problem whose magnitude and political impact is potentially catastrophic to one of our leading political parties? You can draw your own conclusion. For me, I believe we have a significant problem. Not only do we have rampant extortion in operation within our industrial relations system, but by failing to report on it without fear or favour, our media seem to find it acceptable!

Copyright(C)2015 Grappy's Soap Box, all rights reserved

What constitutes 'reasonable' MP travel claims?

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

Media all-in scalps Bishop

After an exhausting couple of weeks with media at full throttle, we have movement.
The speaker has resigned and our PM has announced a review into the so called 'Entitlements' of our MPs. This is progress.

Winners and losers

The ALP are no doubt very happy. They have distracted focus from their leaders problems with the TURC,. They have distracted focus and media scrutiny of their policy turn-backs at their national conference. They have managed to dislodge an entrenched political opponent from the high office of speaker. All without too much damage notice given by the media to their own MPs indiscretions.
Not bad in political terms. Perhaps in the 'dirty tricks office' they are even sharing a champers celebrating a well executed and successful project. With the media in full control at the whim of the puppeteers. But this is just conjecture, since I have heard mention of this possibility but scarcely.

As for the media, they seem to have had a hey day with an All-in frenzy, outrage, interviews, social media trending nicely. I often recall when my six year old started playing soccer in the under-six team. The players invariably formed a single heap around the ball and moved as one across the field.. That seems to reflect the way our mass media seems to always focus on a single topic to the exclusion of many with far greater consequence. The entitlements saga indeed had this focus. And without due analysis the focus seemed to be only on Bishop with other significant rorters left on the whole ignored. Yes her rort was exceptional, and she failed to show contrition, at least until it was too late. But of course many a Labour MP had dipped into the trough and should have had more attention, but if that were the case Bishop scalp would not have been gained. This seemed to be the media's focus. In the last few days most bulletins leading stories was of some commentator asking for Bishop to leave. SO I guess the media are also happy they have a scalp.

As for the Liberals, well they, lose, lose. They have lost the positive momentum they had following Shorten's appearance the TURC and the ALP conference, and they have lost their speaker. Admittedly this is a mixed blessing. Bishop has been a tough but partisan operator and while she remained as speaker the integrity of the parliament was in question.

Could the Libs have handled this better? Certainly! Earlier action would have helped retain momentum. Other tactics may have been face-saving and may have even left the speaker in place. But lets face it, Bishop had damaged herself by both her inexcusable claims and her stance once they were exposed. She has simply faced the consequences.

So we the public are winners. Yes, many others of the ALP (and Libs) have avoided the consequences of their prior 'rorting'. And, yes, some were equally, if not more, egregious than Bishop's. And, yes, it would have been better if the media had spent more time on that aspect of the expense affair.  But, Bishop's forced departure has set an example a precedent.Future miscreants will be held to a similar standard, I hope.

Review must be robust

As for the future, we will have a review of 'entitlements'. That sounds great, but I have concerns. Already, just one day after the review was announced, several MPs have tried to deflect its focus. I heard one declare that the system is not the problem, it was how MPs abused it. Or that the problem with the system is that it has high running costs. Or even to claim the issue with Bishop was not her travel claims but her role as a speaker. So the vested interest of MPs faced with possible loss of 'entitlements' is already evident. No doubt we will hear many more counter arguments as the review approaches some concrete suggestions on how to clamp down on the looseness of the current system.

Don't expect the MPs to create a tight system, as it is to their personal disadvantage. But perhaps this is where the media can earn its crust. The scalp of a speaker was not the main game, although it did seem that way. The underlying aim is to bring integrity into the MP entitlement system. This will only be achieved if the proposed review can introduce clearly defined tests of legitimacy and accountability for all MP expense claims.  (See my previous post titled "Conflict of Interest" for further suggestions as to what constitutes legitimacy and accountability.)

Alas, I fear, this is not the last we have heard of this topic

Copyright(C)2015 Grappy's Soap Box, all rights reserved

Conflict of interest

Politicians work hard to project the image that they always strive to fulfill the needs of the people and the community they represent. But is this always so?

There is no doubt room for argument about what effectively represents a community whose views are, lets say, less than uniform. But this is a mere quibble when we look at some of the conflicts of interest they face in fulfilling this image.

The most obvious is that of parliamentarian remuneration,. While there is always a 'misalignment' between the community and its representatives, here at least, there is a credible argument that 'you get what you pay for'. As many have argued that given what we get, we should be paying more.

But it is hard to think of a case where politicians interests are less aligned with the people they represent than with our pollies' travel expense claims. These are a veritable cesspool of iniquity. There are all too many cases where the peoples' representatives seem to only represent themselves. From their profligate travel-style one would think they lived on a different planet, totally out of touch with their constituency.

When brought to our attention, we all rail at the magnitude and mindlessness of such excess. What in the remotest corner of her brain would have concocted the notion that spending $5,000 for a helicopter to travel half an hour to a Liberal fund-raiser was reasonable, let alone acceptable to the people she represents? It is non-sense. It cannot be justified! And we all know it. Lest you think I am being one-sided, consider our recent past PM claiming expenses for her partner's jaunt around Victoria promoting hair-care goods.

There are of course more subtle abuses where an MP will sort of 'tack on' a claimable event to what is in large-part un-claimable. While this is generally accepted by MPs, and a compliant media I add, as 'fair', we, the public, see it as a rort.  It would not be acceptable to our employers so, as employers of these MPs, it is not acceptable to us.

"a total failure of our political class, in the face of a clear conflict of interest, to set proper standards of behaviour"

It does not matter one iota that when caught the MP pays it back. It does not matter that there is a bit of a penalty when a mis-claim has been identified. The public, the people these MPs are meant to represent are outraged. We don't accept such egregious conduct as a simple 'error of judgment' from those we select to represent us.

The lack of scrutiny, the lack of clarity, and the lack of visibility of MPs' expenses is a serious issue. It demonstrates a total failure of our political class, in the face of a clear conflict of interest, to set proper standards of behaviour. No corporate entity would accept an open-ended expense system. Commercial operations clearly define the scope of claims, the means of travel allowed, and set and review budgets. Indeed where expenditure by a company has been seen to benefit an individual it is a 'Fringe benefit' which is taxable.

Expense claims must be Reasonable and Accountable

I guess this is just a rant unless I add a few suggestions. So here goes.

All politician expense claims must be reasonable and accountable.

'Reasonable' simply means a claim must be consistent with accepted norms within commercial and non-commercial enterprises. This is just the 'sniff' test. Many travel claims, by our MPs certainly fail this 'sniff' test. If an MP has some doubt about what is reasonable, they should submit an application for pre-approval (see below).

A suggested set of guidelines for what constitutes 'reasonable' is provided below;

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

Accountability requires all claims to be managed formally by an independent body and for the public interest they should be visible. If the MP's work on behalf of their constituents then they should 'report ' to their constituency. What better way to shine a light on the excesses than to publish all claims on a website.

A suggested set of rules for accountability are provided below;

How to ensure accountability for travel claims

Expense claim policy to be fully documented and provided to MPs.

All claims must be submitted on the appropriate form together with supporting receipts and be signed by the MP within 30 days of costs being incurred. MPs can submit 'pre-approval' requests for a future claim, if they seek certainty that a claim will not be rejected. Such requests for pre-approval are processed as normal claims and if approved a pre-approval authorisation is provided

All claims to be vetted against the policy by the nominated department (Finance?) and rejections notified to the MP

All approved AND rejected claims,are to be published on a web-site to provide full visibility to the electorate

Its about time!

Unfortunately, like a bad dream the looseness of MP travel expense policy keeps coming back. Indeed past and current PMs seem to rely on our short memories. The media change focus to the next drama and we are easily distracted. Screaming headlines earlier this week have been replaced by the ALP annual conference. The ALP's proposed turn-back of asylum seeker policies drowning out the cacophony of 'helicopter-gate'. So the circus moves on. 

But lets face it. Unless we address the vagaries in the current policies, the next travel rort drama is just around the corner. It is not only about time to address these policies, it is long overdue.


Copyright(C)2015 Grappy's Soap Box, all rights reserved