Victoria

ANALYSIS

Daniel Andrews must do more than tinker around the edges on MPs' entitlements

  • 193 reading now

Daniel Andrews' response to the expense furore that has engulfed his government has ratcheted up by the day in line with a swelling sense of public anger.

On Thursday, when the story broke, the Premier was close to silent, his office releasing a brief statement saying the use of  "second residence" entitlements would be examined by Parliament's audit committee.

Up Next

Police hunt for man over Southbank stabbing

null
Video duration
01:30

More Victoria News Videos

Premier Andrews to tighten MP entitlements

Tightening of MP entitlements will be rushed through state cabinet on Monday after the city-based speaker and deputy speaker resigned after claiming cash for living on the Bellarine Peninsula.

On Friday he disappeared to Morwell, where he pointed out that Telmo Languiller, now the Legislative Assembly's former speaker, was technically "entitled" to claim the $37,678 taxpayer-funded perk to live in Queenscliff while representing a western suburbs electorate, even though it was out of step with public expectations.

Then it was revealed that Mr Languiller's deputy, Don Nardella, who represents the neighbouring electorate of Melton, had also claimed the allowance over about three years while he was living in Ocean Grove.  

By Saturday afternoon, the pressure had become too great. Mr Andrews phoned both men and made it "abundantly" clear the situation could not go on.

"They were left in no doubt that I had no confidence in them to continue in those roles and their positions were untenable and they should resign, and that is what they have done," he said of the conversations.

Advertisement

Finally, on Sunday morning, Mr Andrews announced a proper review of MPs' entitlements "so that this can never happen again and that  the rules as we look to the future are black and white".

It took a few days, but the Premier has now acknowledged the deep sense of anger over the liberties some MPs take with the public's money. Tinkering with the wording won't be enough.

Aside from removing any ambiguity so that the rules are crystal clear, if Mr Andrews hopes to rebuild public trust he should do two things. First, the public should be given access to clear information on what MPs are getting. If an expense is legitimate, do they have to hide?

The alarming lack of transparency when it comes to MPs' expenses only adds to the justifiable perception that Parliament is operating as a closed shop, with oppositions forever promising to be better only to form government and do nothing. Victoria's Parliament isn't even subject to the state's freedom-of-information laws.

Second, all entitlements and expense claims should be overseen by an independent scrutineer looking out for the public's interests. Self-regulation has failed.

Until now the government has resisted demands for a parliamentary standards commissioner, although the idea was never completely taken off the table after being fleetingly discussed by a cabinet sub-committee shortly after the 2014 election.

Other democratic countries have such an office, including Britain, which established a standards commissioner in 1995. It would be the commissioner's job to manage the register of members' interests, monitor the code of conduct for MPs, advise members about the rules, and investigate MPs or their staff for alleged breaches.

The government can no longer ignore the tide of public opinion. As Mr Andrews now seems to acknowledge, the antiquated, opaque entitlements system does no one any favours, least of all our elected representatives.