Australia

Oct 17, 2013

Expenses scandal: the rules leading MPs into temptation

Lead me not into temptation, oh Finance Department ... governance expert Stephen Bartos explains how the rules around MPs' entitlements encourage unscrupulous pollies to claim, claim, claim.

The problem of parliamentarians’ entitlements won’t go away.  Under our present system of multiple, complex and hard-to-define entitlements, reports of rorting are as predictable as the annual Bogong moth invasion of Parliament House now underway. It is rare for an MP to commit deliberate fraud — but some push the boundaries.

The current reporting arises partly from the change of government. What might have been ignored in opposition is magnified when a parliamentarian becomes a minister. It is a rule of politics: the higher a politician climbs, the more attention is paid to them by their opponents and the media. That applies to all sides: if Kevin Rudd had remained a backbencher, his visit to New York strip club Scores would never have become a story.

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions

16 comments

Leave a comment

16 thoughts on “Expenses scandal: the rules leading MPs into temptation

  1. Andrea

    “When Abbott competes in a high-profile sporting event he can reasonably claim that it is part of his job.”

    Why?

    Rob Oakeshott also competed in the same Pollie Pedal and Ironman Challenge as Abbot but claiming expenses didn’t even cross his mind.

  2. dazza

    Politicians ripping off tax-payers is a constant source of news. There seems to be an immoral attitude of ‘oh well, if I get caught I may pay some of it back.
    However, I have always wanted to know why the same attention is not applied to company CEO’s who are responsible for $billions of tax payer money (ie super-funds)? The lurks perks and bonuses enjoyed by non-performing executives never seem to make front page news as if they were a protected species.

  3. Dogs breakfast

    Claiming expenses when attneding sporting events is nothing more than a rort. I’m with Andrea.

    Sure they go out and meet people, and that is part of being a pollie, but this not only doesn’t pass the pub test, it doesn’t pass any reasonable ethics test.

    The problem with that ‘meet the people’ line is that there is nowhere they can go that doesn’t meet that criteria.

    Primary purpose must be the arbiter, and the primary purpose of TA and others cycling around must be for personal reasons.

    Meeting the people is secondary, and in that instance claiming expenses is untenable.

    I would love the tax department to take this on to, Al Capone style.

  4. Bill Hilliger

    @…compared to others’ claims that push the boundaries beyond community standards but are not deliberately wrong. Well…indeed! Given (I hope), most parliamentarians are literate, some people would say that some have made claims that are just theft from the public purse. As a lifelong Commonwealth employee my work covered extensive travel away from home, rules about travel entitlements were not that complex, if you were able to read and write. But then I wasn’t a politician on $230K + numerous other allowances. It seems the more some earn, the more they feel entitled to take if the opportunity presents itself. And when finally they get rumbled – why, you just pay it back, and claim complex rules made you do it. Its a pity there weren’t more Rob Oakshots’ in parliament. We now seem to have *the winner takes all* mentality in our parliamentary system.

  5. klewso

    So, “you can use your allowance to pay your way around the country promoting your book, the proceeds from the sales of which are partly mine, partly the private publishing company, completely ignorant that you are doing the wrong thing deliberately”? Or to place myself within easy access to attend a private function like a wedding?
    We’re subsidising the cost of politicians pursuing their hobbies?
    [I would have thought an easy test would be “If I was a lowly, ordinary, battling tax-payer, would I like to be paying for a politician to be doing this?”?]

  6. shepherdmarilyn

    The claim that Slippers were deliberate is only the claim made by the AFP, I was surprised that Richard Ackland went with it as a fact instead of a claim.

  7. Pedantic, Balwyn

    In business the test of an expense claim is relevance to the job of the claimant; the higher up the corporate tree the more likely that there is flexibility in terms of the value of the claim, but the context remains relevance. So perhaps our pollies could explain the relevance of attending weddings, entertainment, novels, sporting events in the context of their tax payer funded job?

  8. Stephen Cox

    “When Abbott competes in a high-profile sporting event he can reasonably claim that it is part of his job.”

    As Andrea commmented above, why is this the case? He did this repeatedly as opposition leader, sometimes taking multiple days for such events. Meanwhile, he had, I thought, a full time, paid job as a member of parliament. Is this still acceptable behaviour as PM (generously implying it was previously). Was he undertaking full time parliamentary work while participating in these events? If not, what proportion of the time taken was he being paid to indulge his sporting hobbies?

    If Mr Abbott did not undertake full time work, did he take leave? If I undertook such leave from work I would need to have acruued sufficient leave or take leave without pay, the latter at the discretion of my employer. Has this been the case for Mr Abbott? My employer certainly would not be paying my expenses for it as well.

    Crikey, please explain why Mr Abbott’s sporting hobbies are part of his work? If he was an African Violet enthusiast and presented his blooms at competitions, could this also be claimed?

  9. Bill Hilliger

    @ shepherdmarilyn. good point about slipper and the claim made by the AFP keystone cops. Remember the claims of the same keystone cops and Dr Haneef.

  10. sparky

    Don Randall made a claim that he knew was wrong and took the family. If Peter Slipper is being charged then so should he.
    The sporting participation of our PM is a complete and utter rort, have they been pampered for so long that they believe everything they do is claimable.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details

Sending...