Ley her off

Given only 18 months has elapsed since the Choppergate affair saw the dismissal of the speaker of the house, it is simply mind-boggling that expense rorts should surface so soon. Yet here they are centre stage, taking media focus and infuriating the electorate. I covered the last affair in some detail including some suggestions for improving the system (see Conflict of Interest and Footnotes on expense rorts ), so let me just restate a few of the conclusions.

It is hard to think of a case where politicians interests are less aligned with the people they represent than with our pollies' expense claims. Be it a family holiday to Uluru for the wife and kids for $12000 at taxpayer expense, or hiring a chopper for $5000 to get to fund raiser, one would think they lived on a different planet, totally out of touch with their constituency.

In the most recent case Ley's 16 trips to the Gold Coast, where her husband happens to have some business interest, simply doesn't pass the sniff test. Then by way of explanation claiming that a purchase of an $800,000 unit was 'unplanned'  Give me a break.

"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 is contrite and makes some reparation payment. 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 elect to represent us.

There is a lack of scrutiny, a lack of clarity, and the lack of visibility of these expenses. 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. Putting a system in place is not difficult. I have suggested a possible scheme and include below the key requirements. For further details see Conflict of Interest.

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).

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.

Set the bar high

In view of the justified public outrage it is time our leaders established a business-like set of of rules for the eligibility and accountability of all expense claims. Moreover all such claims should be posted on a web site to provide visibility to the public. The punishment for non-compliance should be high and should comprise repayment plus a significant penalty, say double the original claim. Ministers should face immediate dismissal form the ministry for any proven non-compliance.

...but provide an amnesty

Unfortunately Ley's case is no doubt just the tip of the iceberg and many other ministerial transgressions can be identified were all MPs' claims closely scrutinized. So to prevent a wholesale dismissal of the cabinet, despite what the public may want, Turnbull should provide an amnesty for any offences that occurred before the  implementation of the new rules.

Given the politics this should not save Ley, she happens to have been caught out and should be sacked from the ministry. However effective from the date of the announcement any offence should see immediate dismissal. The ministry certainly has had fair warning.

It is time the government started to rebuild long lost trust in our politicians. Implementing a tough expense claim systems is a good place to start.

Footnotes - on MP expense rorts

• The term 'Entitlements' as Malcolm Turnbull and others have noted, is a complete misnomer that seems to have set the manner in which MPs feel entitled to drain the public purse. Drop the name 'Entitlements', call it what it is 'Expenses'.
• It may be acceptable for longer trips for MPs but business class travel for the children of MPs is definitely out of kilter with community expectations 
• Occasional trips by family to Canberra to spend time with their MP seems legitimate, but trips by MPs family around Australia are also out of kilter with expectations
• The community will accept greater leniency for travel expenses given MPs workload and role in our community but MPs have shown they cannot be trusted when rules are so 'open-ended'
• Enterprises often provide executives with an expense allowance. Why not do the same for MPs. Within some defined limits the MP can decide where to use the allowance but never above the limit. The allowance should cover ALL claims by MPs for re-imbursement, ie study tours. The allowance should vary by status back-bencher, minister, etc., and be generous but not unreasonable. I suggest something in the order of 10-15% of their salary may be a guide.
• Contrary to many voices in the media I believe expenses related to party fundraisers should NOT be eligible for claims. The parties can pay these expenses themselves, if they want their MPs to attend.
• Despite some specious arguments to the contrary, it is not difficult to differentiate between a fund-raiser and a public meeting. It is ALWAYS a fund raiser if the money collected goes to a political party.
• We should not have to wait for 6 months to get this sorted out. It seems like a delaying tactic, hoping the controversy will die down. An interim report and actions should be available before the end of the year.
• Having experienced the venom from the electorate the pollies and some 'friends' are now trying to put the issue 'back in the box'. Watch for specious arguments about the difficult working hours, the disruption to family life and all the other hardships our poor MPs suffer. Before you accept any of this gumph, apply Joe Hockey's 'smell' test. How does the MPs role compare to other workers in our society; ambulance drivers, nurses, defence forces, and what benefits do they enjoy?

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