The question of the frequent misuse of parliamentary work expenses, known as entitlements, forces us to look closely at what political representation involves and who should pay for it. The recent case of former health minister Sussan Ley is just one of many questionable instances which have stained reputations and ended careers. So many individuals have been involved that it must be a systemic problem. Though individuals should always be held responsible given their lame explanations and weak reasoning. Their excuses are generally self-serving and their behaviour self-interested.
Two central questions are at the heart of the entitlements issue: what is a legitimate work expense for politicians and who should pay for it?
More National News Videos
Sussan Ley quits
Following days of intense scrutiny over her expense claims, Sussan Ley has resigned as Health Minister with Malcolm Turnbull announcing changes to the MP entitlements system. Courtesy ABC News 24.
As Simon Cowan of the Centre for Independent Studies recently pointed out, political representation is an occupation without parallel. Ministers and MPs have a job in which their "work" is not easily defined. Meeting and greeting is an essential element in political representation. Constituents seek it and often even demand it of their MP, and it is widely regarded as a key element in being a good politician. MPs go on "listening tours" around their electorate. In the case of senators this legitimately means the whole state and for federal ministers the whole country.
As Cowan correctly notes, "should a politician want to be in a particular location for personal reasons, they can essentially manufacture legitimate business anywhere in the country". This is true especially of ministers, and the more senior the minister, the easier it is for such travel to be explained away as work. Politicians can either just be in attendance or they can be a guest of honour required to deliver a speech, for which a media release may be issued.
![Liberal MP Sussan Ley flying over her electorate.](/web/20170125121953im_/http://www.theage.com.au/content/dam/images/g/j/6/s/m/p/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gty55t.png/1485338989301.jpg)
Events at which MPs and ministers are present can either initiated by constituents or groups to which politicians are invited or created by the politician who then invites members of the public.
They can be party political events, organised by the MPs' own party, or political events organised by community pressure groups, like chambers of commerce, trade unions, professional bodies or the like. They can be school fetes, prayer meetings, demonstrations or factory tours. They are so diverse that they are difficult to categorise. The diary of any politician is filled with such events.
They can either be public or private, free or by ticket only. The ticketed events include sporting and cultural events to which the politician will be issued a free ticket (or tickets) and invited to attend as the guest of the organisers, either by the league itself or one of the participating clubs. The ticket may be free but the politician and their partner are often expected to pay for their own travel. This leads inevitably to the question of whether the employer, in this case the public purse, pays, or whether the politician, recognising this is not a work expense, pays for it out of their own pocket.
Whether or not such attendance is a legitimate work expense depends both on the office held by the politician and the definition of political work. For the most senior politicians, including the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader, their presence at just about any event anywhere (bar family and party political events) can itself be seen as work because it is a reasonable public expectation that they honour the community in this way. A major sporting event may not look like work but it is, even for political leaders who genuinely enjoy them. For non-sporting leaders it may even be excruciatingly painful. The same rationalisation extends to ministers in special portfolios, including ministers for sport, or the local member for the area.
Being available and building relationships is a legitimate political activity even if it doesn't always pass the pub test. The presence of political leaders or relevant ministers does not need to be justified by "deals" being done or on demonstrating a direct policy outcome. Such justification of the ACT Chief Minister's presence at Test cricket matches in Sydney in an official capacity, which was made by a former Cricket ACT chairman, is therefore legitimate but unnecessary given Andrew Barr's portfolio.
Nevertheless the question of who pays should be closely examined. There are three options: the public employer, the politician themselves or the event organiser. The last should not be forgotten as they gain kudos from the presence of a political leader. However many big organisations offer politicians an invitation to a corporate box but don't offer to pay travel for political invitees. The correct response is to say "Thank you, but as this is not work I can't afford to come unless you also pay for travel and accommodation". That would determine just how much their attendance is desired and would be a transparent way of conducting public business.
Politicians are undoubtedly especially attracted by major sporting and cultural events, and by events in attractive locations. Increasingly, national community organisations deliberately hold their annual business and professional events in holiday locations to attract their own members as well as guest speakers and politicians.
But far from being a sign of healthy democracy at work, the disproportionate attendance of politicians in these prime locations and in these holiday environments is evidence of the unhealthy narrowing of interaction between politicians and the community. Those who can put on attractive entertainment and those who are based in attractive locations get the lion's share of community consultation and interaction. The majority are left out.
John Warhurst is an emeritus professor of political science at the Australian National University.