Human Services Minister Alan Tudge was asked repeatedly this morning on RN Breakfast why those who were overpaid by Centrelink should face the prospect of going to jail while MPs were given the chance to step down from their jobs while an investigation went on (if that). He struggled to answer the questions, but guess who does have an opinion about the difference in treatment? Former speaker Peter Slipper, who is familiar with spurious uses of travel expenses, has weighed in on the debate about what MPs should claim and what the consequences should be for getting it wrong. Slipper was convicted of three dishonesty charges that were later appealed and set aside over the use of his Cabcharge allowance in 2010. He believes all MPs should be subject to the process he was, tweeting "every MP and Senator should b(sic) subjected to the same forensic examination of expenses as I was. I bet the results would b(sic) interesting" and "I was prosecuted at great expense but found not guilty. Allegations against others should get same treatment. Let them face courts too". Not likely though, is it?