This week the Commonwealth Auditor General released a report on the Administration of Parliamentarians' Entitlements by the Department of Finance and Deregulation.What this reveals is one long rort of the $100,000 MP printing allowance by the major political parties for campaign purposes and a very lackadaisical federal department which did not adequately police invoicing for this allowance.
Happy little pigs in mud abounded in the run up to the last federal election - what with at least $125,000 each to play with at the time.
A little snippet in the report reveals that four unnamed Liberal pollies put in invoices for printing brochures called "Labor can't manage money. You Pay for it", which failed to mention either their names or electorates and seem to have originally been labelled by these MPs as "anti ALP" material.
The report rated these as a real risk of being outside the printing guidelines.
Now Google shows there's a long list of possible suspects ranging from big players like Nick Minchin and Christopher Pyne through to tiddlers such as Michael Ferguson and perhaps Jamie Briggs.
An enjoyable hunt the pollie game for the truly bored and tired of life.
6 comments:
What a daft accusation and bordering on defamation to publish baseless claims.
Nick Minchin is a senator and didn't qualify for MP printing entitlement.
Michael Ferguson tweets the words "labor can't manage money"
Jamie Briggs wasn't even an MP in the last parliament so couldn't have printed any such brochures at taxpayers expense in the lead up to the last election.
Christopher Pyne used the words in a blog post on his website.
What a crappy attempt to be clever with google. Try harder.
All members of parliament, including senators, get a printing allowance. The allowance is smaller for senators than for members sitting in the House of Reps but it definitely exists.
As for any Google search; it is obvious Anon did not look far enough as relevant terms abound in Lib/Nat speeches, media releases, newsletters, MPs website/blog posts, as well as at least one brochure.
As for who was audited in the report - it was not confined to MPs who stood at the 2007 federal election, but included all members of federal parliament and the uses allowances were put to.
Any MPs elected in by-elections in 2008 would also have had to supply the management reports which the audit relied on for some of its information.
If Anon is too busy to read the full report perhaps the media release will suffice;
http://www.smos.gov.au/media/2009/mr_352009.html
Petering said:
Now Google shows there's a long list of possible suspects ranging from big players like Nick Minchin and Christopher Pyne through to tiddlers such as Michael Ferguson and perhaps Jamie Briggs.
An enjoyable hunt the pollie game for the truly bored and tired of life.
I repeat, this is a claim which Petering has failed to substantiate. Its not anon who has missed the point or hasn't done enough reading....
Petering shouldn't make accusations against people he can't back up. That is unless he is a labor stooge.
Firstly, there was no specific accusation in the post concerning the identitity of the four Liberal Pary pollies highlighted in the audit report.
The phrase "long list of suspects" he or she quoted should've tipped Anon to that fact.
Secondly, it was not me who got even the most basic of facts wrong eg., by asserting that senators don't get a printing allowance.
ROFL to the thought I'm a "Labor stooge".
Off to watch the start of the cycling classic - hava good weekend!
Senators DO NOT get the printing allowance MPs get.
Senators get access to printing through the Senate which is vetted by the clerk of the senate for any political content.
The publications are publications of the senate, not the senator.
You've stuffed up.
"The new guidelines follow the release of a damning audit report that found the existing system was "complex and overdue for reform" and open to abuse.
Senator Xenophon, who spent just $1305 of his allowance during the past year, said the revised amounts were still too generous.
"None of it (allowance) was spent on newsletters, so I guess I am a bit of a failure as a politician," he told ABC Radio today."
{http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26048028-5007133,00.html}
"Ten years ago, if I wanted something printed in this place using the printing allowance, there was a Senate printing office. They would say, ‘Senator, you can’t spend it on that,’ or ‘Yes, we’ll go ahead and print that,’ or ‘If you take off the Greens logo, that’ll be okay.’ We knew where we stood. That has now been abolished and we do not know where we stand anymore."
{Senate Hansard on Tuesday 8th September 2009}
If Anon cares to read the report he/she will find that both upper and lower house members do get a printing allowance (admittedly for different amounts as pointed out in my reply of 10th September) and printed material using these allowances is supposedly vetted for content.
That's been part of the problem - the vetting process has broken down and the allowance is open to abuse.
He/she would also find that the Senate printing office ceased printing for senators in 2006.
{Senate Hansard 7th September 2006}
Anon should just use the links and actually read the report before commenting.
Post a Comment