Being the kind of politician who delights in baiting her political opponents, Bronwyn Bishop has elicited little, if any, public sympathy for the discomfort she is experiencing over revelations about her travel arrangements, and more particularly a helicopter flight from Melbourne to Geelong last year.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
Even her Liberal Party colleagues have distanced themselves from Mrs Bishop, with Treasurer Joe Hockey describing the Speaker's decision to bill the $5200 chopper flight to attend a party fund-raiser to taxpayers as clearly failing to pass the "sniff test". Though Mrs Bishop has since said she will be refunding the helicopter charter cost, Labor's decision on Friday to refer the matter to the Australian Federal Police will ensure that she continues to be embarrassed for some time to come.
For those people critical of Mrs Bishop's actions, it was not just that she took liberties with the federal parliamentary guidelines dictating travel entitlements, glaring though this was. It was that her actions seemed to be the epitome of the entitlement mentality to which Mr Hockey has repeatedly inveighed against whilst Treasurer. Dropping in on a fund-raising soiree by helicopter when a car would have been appropriate, far cheaper and not much slower was not just an instance of unnecessary profligacy. It looked suspiciously like a politician putting on airs and graces, behaviour with which voters tend to have a low tolerance.
Mrs Bishop is a 28-year veteran of federal Parliament, and for her to have been oblivious of public sensibilities regarding the all-too-frequent habit of MPs billing taxpayers for their travel to fundraisers or other party-related events beggars belief. The Speaker's position she occupies (and for which she receives a yearly stipend of $341,000) is nominally unaligned and this fact too would have added to voters' fury at her attending a party fundraiser.
It's a curious if ironic fact that some of Mrs Bishop's recent predecessors from the conservative side of politics were also accused of being haughty and pompous while in the job. Bill Snedden revived the formal regalia of full-bottomed wig and gown worn by House of Commons speakers, and Peter Slipper donned a special gown too, athough he eschewed a wig. Both believed this resort to tradition would enhance the dignity of the office of Speaker, and both took pains to enhance the Speaker's independence and impartiality, efforts for which they were praised at the time. By contrast, Mrs Bishop's speakership has been controversial not for her adherence to tradition but for her partiality and her willingness to eject Labor MPs from the House over the slightest transgression in standing orders.
That partisanship has undoubtedly contributed to Labor's decision to refer Mrs Bishop's travel claim declaration to police, even though they'd be aware that doing so will probably invite embarrassing revelations as to their own entitlement claims. Labor's stance would be all the more commendable if the party had troubled to bring greater rigour and accountability to parliamentary entitlements in the past. In fact, both the major parties have conspired to create a system remarkable for its all-encompassing and all-forgiving nature, and in which misleading or false declarations are forgiven the instant the entitlement is refunded. One of the few MPs to have fallen foul of these extraordinarily trusting and lax guidelines was Peter Slipper, who in 2013 was accused of dishonestly using taxpayer funds ($954 in all) to visit Canberra vineyards for his own enjoyment. Denied the opportunity to simply repay the Cabcharge vouchers, Mr Slipper was charged and found guilty, ordered to reimburse the money and given a community service order. The conviction and sentence were later set aside on appeal.
It's unlikely the case would have made it to court had Mr Slipper still been a Liberal MP and not an independent held in some odour for his "collaboration" with Labor over the speakership. Nonetheless, his case should have warned other MPs about the need to better observe the spirit of the regulations, if not their wording. Instead, politicians continue to manage their affairs as they have done in the past, with what frequently seems to be complete indifference, even contempt, for the rules designed to prevent private and public interests intersecting. That voters should regard MPs with contempt is hardly surprising. Indeed, it is hard to say whose contempt is the greater.
