Empty vessels

Listening to Bowen's interview on ABC AM radio program this morning was painful. He is nothing if not fluent, spewing words at breathtaking speed. Arguments dart this way and that as if a random argument generator has been programmed to change arguments every 30 seconds,
Who cares if he contradicts himself  every now and then, after all even an expert interviewer has trouble following him and even if he does stands little chance of probing some of his answers. I wont even mention the listener, we have no chance. So once he has started we switch off.  Perhaps that is his purpose. If he keeps talking the interviewer has no chance of asking secondary probing questions. Also if you keep talking, the time allotted for the interview will have been used to push your scripted attacks on the government.

The questions were well framed, concise and and targeted.

The answers however simply rapid, verbose, mechanical and scripted.

Consider just this small exchange at the start of the interview;

"MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: Now the Government accuses you of having a $66 billion black hole. Now let's put aside the feverish rhetoric for the moment, but you are spending more than the Government in this campaign so far. Is that a responsible approach.

CHRIS BOWEN: No, and the fantasy that the Government has... where 'no' is the answer to the premise of your question. 

The fantasy that the Government is putting about today just underlines the fact they have no policy vision of their own. 

The Government ministers - the Treasurer, the Finance Minister - are spending a whole lot more time talking about Labor policy than their own.

Now the biggest hit to the budget, the biggest single hit to the budget, during this election period has been this Government's reluctantly costed and completely unfunded $50 billion corporate tax cut. 

Now we will not take any pious lectures from a Government which has at the centrepiece of its budget a tax cut which they wouldn't tell the Australian people how much it would cost - so much for transparency - and is completely and totally unfunded and a piece of fiscal recklessness.

Good straight forward question. But the answer? After all the words what did he say ? I am not sure, but all I can see is that he seemed to agree that Labour's approach was not responsible. I am sure that was not his intention.

The rest seems to be mechanical, scripted attacks on the government, not addressing the question.

Ok maybe that was just an exception, what about the next question.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: But you've banked that tax cut as a credit, haven't you? $50 billion credit that you're busily going around spending.

CHRIS BOWEN: No, it's a measure we won't proceed with, obviously. And when our fiscal bottom lines get compared during the election campaign, they will have that black hole and we will have our spending and saving commitments. 

Now we've taken a responsible approach. Now, in that same week in which Scott Morrison and Malcolm Turnbull announced their $50 billion corporate tax cut, Bill Shorten replied on behalf of the Opposition. 

Remember Scott Morrison saying that morning, "When Bill Shorten speaks tonight, every time he moves his lips he'll be spending"? Not one single spending commitment in the budget reply. In fact, a further $70 billion worth of savings. 

So we've taken a responsible approach. We've dealt with issues which have been in the 'too-hard' basket for 30 years, like negative gearing. 

The Government's not had the courage to do that. We're showing that we are a viable alternative government by setting the policy agenda, by having a very responsible approach, and when the two sides' fiscal bottom lines are compared during this election campaign, I think you'll see that Labor has taken a particularly responsible approach. 

We don't see a return to budget balance and a proper investment in our schools, for example, as being a choice. 

We see them as both being complementary and essential for a modern economy, where a proper plan for budget repair which is far, but an investment in the social capital of our nation.

Now, this election is about choices. Yes, we're investing in schools, absolutely. 

We don't hide from that, we're very proud of it. The Government, their big commitment is a corporate tax cut, which is completely unfunded. Now they say they can't afford $37 billion for schools. They say that's completely reckless. They say it can't be afforded. But they magically can afford a $50 billion tax cut for big business, and we are more than happy to have that debate.

Another concise question gets the Bowen word machine going. Most of the response is simply wasting time with Bowen's typical mechanical mindless drivel.

Yes it sometimes returns to the topic, yes there are some relevant points, but in order to maintain the break-neck delivery, thinking, any thinking before talking, is left by the wayside. The result is a barely intelligible flow of rhetoric. And he does it all the time. I am surprised no one has tapped him on the shoulder to change his style.

Empty vessels do make the most noise!

Media are part of the problem

Are the media reporting or taking an active role in our political system?

This very question was raised by Tony Abbott in his concession speech; -

".... a febrile media culture has developed that rewards treachery.

“And if there’s one piece of advice I can give to the media, it’s this – refuse to print self-serving claims, that the person making them won’t put his or her name to. Refuse to connive or dishonour, by acting as the assassin’s knife".

http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/09/15/13/26/abbott-makes-final-speech-as-pm#ikzRdGplb5WGbhAQ.99

Tony Abbott's point was about the role of anonymous sources and 'white-anting', and I have covered that in my previous post (House of cards).

More generally stated, it is an accusation that the media by its constant focus on 'negatives', often trivial non-sensical contrived issues, creates, amplifies and perpetuates instability in our political system. Politicians are distracted to fight nuisance issues while their reform agenda is put on the back-burner. As a consequence our country's problems are not addressed, opportunities are not taken.

Is the 'system broken' when we have had 5 PM's in 5 years? Most external observers would think so. Not so our journalists. Niki Sava, and I m sure she is not alone, argues that our system is not broken and is working as it should (see The Australian, Sep 19, 2015, Yes, we’re not a banana republic, and no, the system ain’t broke). She argues it is our Prime Ministers who have not been up to the game. Many have nodded agreement, but this is simply self-serving media rationalisation.

Paul Kelly took the most unusual step of contradicting Sava, admittedly in a most gentlemanly style. (see The Australian, Sep 23 2015, Negative politics the biggest enemy of reform). How often do you see the Editor-in-Chief of a paper write an article addressing the same issues but offering a totally opposite view to one of their own journalists? I have not seen it before and surely it is rare. It is a brave and insightful article. Kelly has, I believe, described the issue well. By their very active magnification of even minor political 'issues' to the point that it causes paralysis, the media are complicit in the rising instability of our political system. We no longer get reform because any attempt at addressing it gets shot down in a torrent of criticism.

Media as king makers

However, I believe the problem goes deeper, as illustrated by the down-fall of three recent Prime Ministers in their first term.

There is a simple vicious circle, in which the media has a central role, that works to undermine sitting PMs.

It works like this; -

• The media pick up any nuance of what is regarded as a 'political' error by the PM. 
• All such errors are widely reported, scrutinized from every possible angle, usually to the exclusion of all else. This magnifies the issue and takes air-time from everything else. Often the trivial overtakes the substantial. Consider flags, cigars, winks, to name just a few.
• Wide publication influences public opinion. In the first instance it need not be a great influence, even a small one will have an impact.
• The influence is reflected in the polls with a downward movement in the popularity of the leader and his party. Published lower poll numbers further influence the electorate and the popularity of the PM and his/her party.
• This becomes a vicious circle, with each decrease in poll numbers encouraging the media to look for more faults which then causes further falls in the polls.
• Bad polls lead to questions of leadership and eventually a spill.

Does it look familiar?  Is is any wonder that three recent PMs have been brought down by their own parties?

Without doubt our political media are a key ingredient and must accept their failure in perpetuating this vicious cycle.

It is not difficult to address. Indeed it is very simple. But I will leave that commentary to another day.

House of cards

Our political system is unstable

It is but a day after the coup which saw the fourth change of PM in but just over two years, and the third time a PM was replaced within their first term. These are unprecedented events, more akin to a television drama than real life. But alas that is politics today.

Many are coming to terms with the events of the past 24 hours, some readily accept the change others more reluctantly do so. Time will tell how this drama ends.

Like many outside observers I find these blatant 'full frontal' challenges a rather brutal and brutalizing process. It hearkens back to the animal kingdom where the leader of the pride has to maintain leadership by mane to mane combat against all challengers, in a fight sometimes to the end. My preference would be for a more gentlemanly behind-the-scenes arrangement where leaders would be changed from time to time by handshakes-and-nods when the numbers favoured a new nominee. Alas today that seems so naive and idealistic.

Is any of this the media's fault?

While I don't want to go into the specifics of this recent coup I am concerned about the process which uses the media as a tool of the dissatisfied.

As the recently deposed Tony Abbott noted in his concession speech ;

".... a febrile media culture has developed that rewards treachery.

“And if there’s one piece of advice I can give to the media, it’s this – refuse to print self-serving claims, that the person making them won’t put his or her name to. Refuse to connive or dishonour, by acting as the assassin’s knife".

http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/09/15/13/26/abbott-makes-final-speech-as-pm#ikzRdGplb5WGbhAQ.99
It seems that the recent instability within our political system has come hand in glove with several trends in our modern media, including; -

• the oft cited 24 hour news cycle requiring ever increasing content
• the frequency of polling
• the increasing number of commentators and media sources
• a social media background that has an ever greater appetite for commentary

For all these reasons any political decision or indecision receives the most detailed scutiny.
Opinions abound and too often the trivial takes precedence over stories of greater import. I guess everyone will have examples but consider the kerfuffle about a 'wink', or  the number of flags on a podium.

As a consequence our media amplifies and extends these sometimes serious, sometimes trivial, issues way beyond what would have been the case but a decade ago. (See my earlier comments on media  Mass media moving masses , Mischievous media magnifies mayhem)

So by its nature the media will amplify dissatisfaction.

But wait there is more...

Add to the ready-to-report, ready-to-amplify media, the treacherous, underhanded, conniving politician, eager to undermine their current leader, whether for venegeance for a past wrong, to gain a more senior role, or some rationalised 'noble' reason. We now have a secret cabal whereby Mr Treachery becomes the anonymous source for leaks to a compliant journalist, or two. The information is thrust into the public arena anonymously to wreak havoc with public opinion and to undermine the leader. This process is not new, we have seen it all too often. Indeed it is now a tactic well proven.

Moreover since it has worked in the past no doubt it will be used in the future.
Reluctantly I accept the reality of human nature; naked ambition, the bitterness of wrongs past, and the ability of otherwise good people to rationalise dishonest behaviour.

My question is about the media. Is the media ethical when publishing anonymous sources?

Is the media's use of anonymous sources ethical?

The very juxtaposition of the two words 'media' and 'ethics' seems to generate a smirk, but I continue.

Media ethics is indeed at the very foundation of media studies and rightly so. Of course anonymous sources are an integral part of the profession.

My, admittedly limited, readings indicate the appropriate use of anonymous sources is not clearly defined. Indeed the Society of Professional Journalists advises care in their use and tellingly advises;

"2. Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.

The information-gathering business is a give-and-take practice with a lot of public officials. Some are willing to provide information only when it benefits them. When someone asks to provide information off the record, be sure the reason is not to boost her own position by undermining someone else’s, to even the score with a rival, to attack an opponent or to push a personal agenda. Media outlet practices vary, but journalists should not overlook the danger of legal problems and credibility damage from publishing anonymously sourced information that is not confirmed by public records or credible sources. Before journalists allow themselves to be used by an anonymous source they should be sure to question whether the news value warrants whatever the source hopes to accomplish." (my emphasis) http://www.spj.org/ethics-papers-anonymity.asp

It seems SJP is advising not to use anonymous sources if any one of the following apply; -

1. the motivation behind the anonymous information is for some 'political advantage'
2. there is a possibility that the information is untrue
3. the news value does not warrant whaterver the source want to achieve

Looking at the recent white-anting of Tony Abbot, the leaks seem to have broken all of these criteria. Lets look at each in turn.

The motivation behind the anonymous information is for some 'political advantage'

Clearly, the leaks from the cabinet room have been for a political advantage, ie bringing instability into the government in order to initiate a coup. 

Consider these; - 

SMH June 16,2015 - Leaked briefing paper shows divisions in Tony Abbott cabinet over cancelling citizenship

SMH August 19, 2015 - Leaked talking points tell ministers to say our cabinet is functioning exceptionally well

These headlines speak for themselves.

Most significantly the leak about the planned reshuffle of senior ministers triggered the events of yesterday.

Herald Sun Sep 11,2015 - Cabinet leak is very messy

There is a possibility that the information is untrue

There have been several recent stories which relied on anonymous sources that have proved to be untrue. The one that comes to mind is the story that Mr Abbott had refused to meet with the same sex partner of Australia's ambassador to France. 

SMH May 5,2015 - Ambassador to France offers resignation after bizarre Abbott airport incident

And then proven to be false; -
The Australian May 6,2015 - Abbott had dinner with ambassador in Paris after snub

The news value does not warrant whatever the source want to achieve

Most of the above stories carry no news value other than to show that there is internal division in the cabinet. This is of course news, but it is in fact the very objective the source is trying to achieve. In other words by printing the story the journalist is providing no more information than what the source wants to achieve.
It is clear that, by the criteria outlined by the SJP a professional journalist would not have published these stories. Indeed a professional journalist should never use anonymous sources in these political 'white-anting' situations.

Oh, for a more ethical media

It seems a lonely cry into the ether, but I implore our professional media to look at their role as reporters of truth, without fear or favour. Do not become become the 'assassin's knife', do not accept anonymous leaked stories from treacherous MPs. By doing so you would not be failing your journalistic profession , on the contrary you would be practicing what the Society of Professional Journalists suggest is ethical best practice. 

4 reasons why Dyson Heydon should stay as TURC commissioner

Fresh from the successful scalp of Bronwyn Bishop the Media/ALP pack are at it again. This time the target is Dyson Heydon, the ex High court judge now leading the Trade Union Royal Commission(TURC). Universally acclaimed as a man of integrity he is now being hounded out of office. The next few days will prove whether this mass attack is successful.

But irrespective of the outcome, is this attack reasonable? Would his removal be just and in the best interests of our country or would it reward and thereby encourage and legitimize such unseemly political tactics as the new normal in Australia's political discourse.

Much has been said and written on this so I am sure everyone is familiar with the core facts. I will restrict my comments to make just four points.

1. There is no 'Perception of bias'
2. A political leaning does not disqualify DH from fulfilling his role
3. There is no down-side in keeping DH in his role 
4. There is a serious downside in removing him from his role

There is no 'perception of bias'

There is no evidence that DH has exhibited any bias at all. In fact no one is arguing that he has or even that he is likely to. All argument is that there is a 'perception of bias'.
ALP and many in the media argue that 'perception of bias' is a sufficient criterion for his removal.
However the loudest calls come from those who do not apply this rule universally. The case of Gillian Triggs comes immediately to mind. In that case the argument was not even about a perception of bias but what was argued to have been demonstrated bias. Those who argued that Triggs should remain in her job but today argue that Heydon be removed are doing so for reasons other than potential 'perception of bias'.

ALP MPs are simply arguing out of self interest trying to stop the TURC as they see it as politically damaging given their close Union allegiance. Their colours were shown even before Dyson Heydon was appointed to his role, labeling the TURC as political witch-hunt, and they have not let up ever since. Their calls are certainly tainted.
As for the journos, they should explain their different stance themselves. It certainly looks like they are simply exposing their own political leanings.

Calls from those who are themselves biased must be dismissed.

A political leaning does not disqualify DH from fulfilling his role

A vast majority of thinking Australians have a political leaning. They vote in elections for one of the parties and they carry their leanings into their work and their private lives. So too do lawyers, police, teachers, judges and even royal commissioners. Why would we expect any judge not to have a political leaning?. 

Every day Judges, especially High Court judges are expected to rule on matters which may have some political impact. Yet we trust our judges, especially our High Court judges to make their rulings impartially, dependent only on the evidence presented and in accord with the laws of the land.

So why should anyone expect DH not to have a political leaning? Such leanings cannot rule him out as royal commissioner. Indeed if it did then no person could serve as a royal commissioner as no one is free of such leanings.

 Moreover, past High Court judges and Royal Commissioners have remained in their roles even after they presented speeches at party events. This is not even the case with DH, as he withdrew from the event.

There is no downside in keeping DH in place

There is no downside in keeping DH in his role because the TURC is the first step in a process which will have thorough parliamentary and legal scrutiny.

The TURC is gathering evidence on Union Corruption. The evidence will form the basis of a report, which will result in many Union officials facing criminal charges. Some have already been charged and some thirty have been named, who are likely to face charges. The evidence against individuals will be revisited in a court of law, where it will be weighed and considered. 

The final report of the TURC will no doubt make a series of recommendations regarding the introduction of new laws around Union governance.  The recommendations will also be weighed and considered by the government and will be debated by parliament.

So DH can continue to fulfill his role as TURC commissioner, irrespective of perceived or even actual leanings, without invalidating any of its findings.

There is a serious downside in removing him from is role

At the same time there is considerable and serious downside if DH does not continue to lead the TURC. 

You don't have to go past the hysterical calls for his resignation from the ALP to gauge the success of the commission to date. The TURC has brought to light corruption at the highest levels of many Unions (AWU, CFMEU, HSU etc.) and has named some thirty individuals who will in all likelihood face charges. No doubt much more is to come. 

It has been acknowledged by most commentators that DH has done an exemplary job to date.  While it has been argued that a new commissioner could be appointed, inevitably there would be a loss of momentum and who knows if the new commissioner would have the same level of success that DH has already demonstrated.

A further downside of removing DH from his role, would be to reward the 'shock and awe tactics' of the Media/ALP alliance. This contemptible political tactic is a new unwelcome entry into our social order. It works by confecting outrage over some issue, in this case the cancellation of a planned talk, and amplifying it through a compliant media into a political storm. Rewarding such tactics only encourages their use and debases our political and social discourse, and therefore should be strongly resisted. 

Finally, the removal of a high respected ex High Court judge without a 'just' cause would tarnish the exemplary record of a respected Australian. This is simply unethical.



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

  

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

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