Illustration: Andrew Dyson

Illustration: Andrew Dyson

As an editor, I always found scandals around politicians' expenses such as travelling to exotic places for meetings or spending hundreds on restaurant meals reliably dull. Usually, they are tabloid fodder, designed to foster outrage about those greedy bastards living it up on taxpayers' dollars. Often, the stories encourage cynicism about politics at a time when trust is already fragile.

But the recent flurry of expenses revelations has a different flavour and will prove to be an early test of whether Prime Minister Tony Abbott will lead a government of integrity or not. This time, the question of cynicism is one for him to counter.

The reason is that there is a whiff of possible dishonesty about at least one of the expense claims and a question of consistency about how people are treated for similar transgressions. Abbott can't just ride this out as he attempted on 3AW this week, when he said that ''there are always going to be arguments at the margin'' over the misuse of entitlements.

To date, Fairfax has reported on seven politicians who have recently repaid expense claims. There is Abbott (who repaid about $1700 for claims to attend the weddings of then colleagues Sophie Mirabella and Peter Slipper); Attorney-General George Brandis (repaid $1600 for claims to attend the wedding of radio personality Michael Smith); Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce (repaid $650 for a Commonwealth car to attend the same wedding); Labor MP Mark Dreyfus (repaid $466 he claimed for accommodation in Canberra when he was really on a skiing holiday), Immigration Minister Scott Morrison and Assistant Defence Minister Stuart Robert ($354 each for a wedding in 2011) and Western Australian Liberal MP Don Randall (repaid $5259 for claiming for ''electorate business'' a trip to Cairns with his wife.)

Joyce admitted he was wrong to claim for a car to take him to a wedding. Dreyfus said his claim was an ''administrative error''. Senator Brandis denies the claim was wrong, but said he repaid to ''resolve any ambiguity''. Abbott said he attended the weddings in an official capacity, admitted the rules were unclear and repaid the money ''to avoid doubt''. Morrison said it was an error, and Robert returned the money to avoid ''ambiguity''.

The exception is Randall, and it is his case that takes this story into more serious territory. He has so far provided no explanation for how his Cairns trip was for ''electorate business''. Fairfax reported that a week after his overnight November visit, he updated his pecuniary interest register to note that he and his wife had taken possession of a Cairns investment property, leading to the suspicion - only that at this stage - that this may have been the purpose of the visit. Randall paid back the money ''to ensure the right thing is done by the taxpayer and alleviate any ambiguity''. But that's far from good enough.

In the other instances, as much as they might fail the ''pub'' test, there is no suggestion of dishonesty or fraud, just stretching the rules a little, or a broad interpretation of ill-defined terms in a system that lacks oversight. Clearly something has to be done about that now, but if Randall's primary reason to travel to Cairns was to take possession of a house, that is something else entirely.

There is a well-known example of a former MP who was not allowed to pay back dubious expense claims. Former speaker Peter Slipper has been charged with three ''dishonesty'' offences after an Australian Federal Police investigation.

What is alleged is that Slipper took tours to wineries around Canberra on three days in 2010. Each time, instead of filling out the Cabcharge for the full amount owed, it is alleged that he requested multiple Cabcharges be filled out, claiming different amounts for short trips such as ''Parliament House to suburbs'' and ''from suburbs to suburbs''. The allegation is that Slipper knew what he was doing was wrong. ''The details were false, to his knowledge,'' the AFP says.

This is a critical distinction between Slipper's predicament and others. Except, possibly, for Don Randall. Unless he has a good explanation about what electorate business brought him from Perth to Cairns it seems impossible that the federal police would not eventually investigate in the same way it looked into Slipper's alleged breaches. The system is all over the place - at the moment, the Finance Department is believed to be investigating. It's not about the money - Slipper's entire Cabcharge bill was less than $1000. It's about allegations of deliberate misuse of public money by an elected representative.

A full week after Fairfax revealed the Cairns trip, Mr Abbott tried to defend Mr Randall, saying that he went to Cairns for ''very important discussions'' with then Coalition Whip Warren Entsch, whose electorate takes in Cairns. The purpose of that meeting has not been revealed, nor why Randall's wife needed to be there. It is far from a satisfactory explanation.

In Victoria, Frankston MP Geoff Shaw faces fraud charges over allegedly using his parliamentary car for his commercial hardware business and one charge of misconduct in public office. Again, the issue here is Shaw's intention, whether he knew what was being done and whether he authorised it. He denies the allegations.

A Victorian review into entitlements released in February was scathing, saying the process was complex, inconsistent and lacked transparency - there is no public reporting on MPs' use of entitlements. Attempts have been made to tighten up the federal system over the years, too, with little result.

The Greens' proposal of a federal anti-corruption body, or at least an independent officer to oversee and advise on entitlements, is starting to look reasonable. Abbott doesn't like the Greens' proposals, but says he is open to ideas for reform.

But it's Abbott's responsibility now, and unless he does something soon, he will face a very cynical electorate indeed.

Gay Alcorn is an Age columnist and former editor of The Sunday Age.

Twitter: gay_alcorn.