cobran20

How long will Bronwyn Bishop remain?

73 posts in this topic

I think so, and it will be accompanied by an increase in salary to compensate for the loss of entitlements. 

 

Totally agree. Rather compensate them up front whilst they're working, instead of the hidden perks open to abuse and the lifetime benefits afterwards. Hate to think how much monies have been paid to ex-PM's alone over the years, let alone the other pollies. Whitlam & Fraser certainly got their money's worth out of the taxpayer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree. Rather compensate them up front whilst they're working, instead of the hidden perks open to abuse and the lifetime benefits afterwards. Hate to think how much monies have been paid to ex-PM's alone over the years, let alone the other pollies. Whitlam & Fraser certainly got their money's worth out of the taxpayer.

 

and here is an indication of the possible rise:

 

 

 

... At the federal government-owned Australia Post, where he is currently chief executive, he gets about 10 times as much for running the country's letters and parcels service as Prime Minister Tony Abbott receives for running the country.

In fact, Fahour is the federal government's best-paid employee. In the year to June 2013, his remuneration was almost $4.8 million, compared to the prime minister's $507,000....
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree. Rather compensate them up front whilst they're working, instead of the hidden perks open to abuse and the lifetime benefits afterwards. 

I didn't say whether it was a good or bad idea, just the most likely to happen. You pay MPs a fair amount to travel for their duties, but that creates a situation where they have a disincentive to travel to complete their duties. 

Hate to think how much monies have been paid to ex-PM's alone over the years, let alone the other pollies. Whitlam & Fraser certainly got their money's worth out of the taxpayer.

 

 

I have no problem with providing ex pms with generous travel and allowances. I'd hate to think that one of our ex PMs turned up to a meeting/event/whatever looking like a soggy old piece of toast. Respect! It's the other 200+ ex MPs I have issue with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say whether it was a good or bad idea, just the most likely to happen. You pay MPs a fair amount to travel for their duties, but that creates a situation where they have a disincentive to travel to complete their duties. 

I have no problem with providing ex pms with generous travel and allowances. I'd hate to think that one of our ex PMs turned up to a meeting/event/whatever looking like a soggy old piece of toast. Respect! It's the other 200+ ex MPs I have issue with. 

 

Politicians can still get a travelling allowance to do their duties. But access to such allowance needs to be heavily scrutinized and publically reported on a weekly basis. Burke should not be allowed to put in a claim for the monies he spent on air tickets for his family, especially business class.

How an ex-politician spend/invest their money is their business & responsibility like it is for the rest of us. I don't think their position of privilege should be sponsored by taxpayers after they leave office. If an ex-PM goes broke.and needs charity from the Salvation Army to survive, then too bad!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell them they're dreaming.

 

 

 

Fairfax Media can reveal that even as the Bronwyn Bishop expenses scandal was at its peak last month, four former lower house MPs – Labor's Barry Cunningham, Tony Lamb and Barry Cohen and Liberal John Moore – issued the court with a writ of summons seeking a boost to their already generous post-parliament payments.

The men want to use section 51 of the constitution – made famous in the classic Australian comedy The Castle – to challenge legislative changes the Gillard government made in 2011 and a series of subsequent Remuneration Tribunal decisions that have slightly slowed the growth of their retirement allowances.
Advertisement
 
Even though the four men now get between $81,000 and $115,000 a year from the taxpayer – not including bonus allowances based on the various roles they served in Parliament – they want more.
They argue their allowances should be based on a percentage of the full salary of current backbench MPs, which is about $195,000. Under the changes, their allowances are instead based on a percentage of their pre-2011 salaries – about $154,000...
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politicians can still get a travelling allowance to do their duties.

The family reunion travel is a massive rort and needs to stop. 

 

The question arises as to what an MPs duties are? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Department of Finance will keep secret the outcome of its investigation into the questionable use of taxpayer-funded entitlements by three prominent federal politicians.

Former speaker Bronwyn Bishop, long-serving Liberal MP Philip Ruddock and Labor frontbencher Tony Burke each asked the department to audit their spending in an attempt to defuse a public backlash over the widening expenses scandal. 

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/mp-expenses-department-of-finance-investigations-to-remain-secret-20150810-givqbk.html#ixzz3iRp8ChrZ 

Follow us: @brisbanetimes on Twitter | brisbanetimes on Facebook

 

 

An investigation that his kept secret is hardly going to defuse public backlash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An investigation that his kept secret is hardly going to defuse public backlash.

The report will undoubtedly state that all spending was done within guidelines ... very liberal/loose ones that is!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The report will undoubtedly state that all spending was done within guidelines ... very liberal/loose ones that is!

From what I've noticed most spending has been within guidelines, just not to the spirit of them. 

 

I think it will end up in a set of more complex rules that may end up with no less rorting and restrict MPs duties.

 

eg - having to get approval for airtravel under possible new rules. I might arrange a trip to coincide with something else but because I outlined the reasons/ meetings etc in advance I get it approved and the family tag along. After the PM/Queen/whoever cancels a trip to open a new womens shelter, I get invited to do the opening. I can't get approval fast enough to be there. 

Edited by zaph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it will end up in a set of more complex rules that may end up with no less rorting and restrict MPs duties.

 

 

Here's a simple set of rules that could lead to less odious use of allowances.

 

1.  Plan, book and pay for travel from either personal, private or party funds.

 

2. submit claim for payment of travel and include all public, private and personal events attended (with justification for the portion claimed). 

 

3.  claim is reviewed by 3 random voters from their electorate and an appropriate portion is refunded. (eg.  1 ribbon cutting, one party fund raiser and visiting new hospital, looks like 2/3 refund but electorate might think it's ok and refund 100% or say that since there is a fundraiser and they would be there anyway there should be no public support for travel - who know how it would go)

 

This would allow direct judgement by their constituents and also have possible benefit of more prudent spending because of the risk that it would be their own money that was being used.

 

Is this how the tax office makes a judgement on taxpayer claims?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3.  claim is reviewed by 3 random voters from their electorate and an appropriate portion is refunded. (eg.  1 ribbon cutting, one party fund raiser and visiting new hospital, looks like 2/3 refund but electorate might think it's ok and refund 100% or say that since there is a fundraiser and they would be there anyway there should be no public support for travel - who know how it would go)

 

As a random voter do I get educated in the rules? Do I get sent to training in Perth so that I'm competent to make a decision? More importantly, can I take my family to the training?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bugger!  ^_^

 

 
 

 

....Then came the disastrous news from the Avalon Beach RSL Club, in the heartland of Mrs Bishop's Mackellar electorate on Sydney's northern beaches....

 
Just after 6.15pm on Monday, the former Madam Speaker's badge number was plucked out in the weekly members' badge draw, and she was announced as the lucky winner of a $2500 cash prize.
 
The problem was, club rules stipulate that the winner must be in the room to claim the jackpot, worth roughly half a helicopter ride from Melbourne to Geelong....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With politicians, and some staffers all wanting to leave Canberra at the same time, I'd imagine some have to go in economy. Qantas soon worked out Bishop's useless to them now and bumped her to economy. I wonder if they've cancelled her chairmans lounge membership yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the problem? I charter a chopper to do my grocery shopping. I make the pilot land in the disabled spot.

 

The two trips are a little different. Brons chopper replaced an hour drive to raise funds for the libs. Joyce's chopper replaced a four hour drive for what was apparently parliamentary business.

 

His excuse that it was necessary because it was the only means of travel that allowed him to open a Telstra mobile tower is BS. Telstra would have rescheduled the opening to fit with his schedule. Have the 409 people of Drake only discovered mobile phones this year?

 

In reality this trip was an election campaign one. He would have been much wiser to drive and visit places on the way, stayed the night at his love lunatic hotel and driven back the next day.

 

Joyce is dead. This is just the beginning. Wait for the articles outlining the rest of his $136k air charter bill. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joyce is dead. This is just the beginning. Wait for the articles outlining the rest of his $136k air charter bill. 

Didn't take long for more to come out...

Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce chartered a helicopter to visit an area less than an hour and a half by road from his ministerial office in Armidale.

 

Confirmation of four helicopter flights forced Mr Joyce's office on Friday to withdraw its statement to Fairfax Media on Thursday that the two flights to Drake were his only helicopter usage since becoming the MP for New England in 2013.

 

"Our statement was incorrect and we are going to correct it online," said a spokesman.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/barnaby-joyce-chartered-chopper-for-120km-journey-20160408-go1y84.html

and he gets busted telling fibs. 

Edited by zaph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take it that this thread is now complete.

It feels fulfilling to see a thread through to its natural conclusion.

That's all she wrote folks.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take it that this thread is now complete.

It feels fulfilling to see a thread through to its natural conclusion.

That's all she wrote folks.......

We've got Barnaby's chopper issues to go on with. I'm surprised this hasn't got more attention (including no separate thread here).

 

I suspect Windsor will try to bring it up again. He's still got $130k of charter flights to poke Joyce with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now