Poirot has unnecessarily got himself into a right tizz trying to prove what was stated simply and without all of the dressing at the start:

'If I had advice for the Prime Minister, it might be that he point out to his team the dreadful cost to the Labor Party of the Peter Slipper business, the Craig Thomson business, and even the Julia Gillard business.'

Is there a government or opposition that didn't have a member or even a few against whom allegations of abuse of entitlements and particularly travel allowances were made?

What have made things infinitely worse is the reluctance of the Parliament to hold the very people who make up that house accountable. It isn't just a problem of PMs and their ministers, it is the whole Parliament that has slipped in that respect. It is 'Catch me if you can and you will have to prove it first, but even then I will still continue to deny it'. John Howard for instance demanded that the case be proved against one of his ministers in a court of law before he might ask the minister to resign.

Of course Julia Whatshername's era will always be remembered for lack of accountability and poor ethics generally.

My poor editing again, para 4 should start, 'What has..', not 'What have..'.

The single greatest weakness in Parrot's "travel rort" argument is that all these coalition costs were itemized, detailed, and submitted to the dept of Finance. Not one of these costs has been flagged as not complying with the regulations.

In fact, so far the only the only "rort" that clearly does not comply is Mark Dufus's claim for accommodation in Canberra whilst skiing in Perisher. In fact submitting falsified documents goes beyond the amnesty provided by the Minchin agreement, and puts the perpetrator at risk of prosecution (as Slipper discovered). Not a good look for the shadow AG.

All this ultra-partisan mud-slinging (your lot's more corrupt than my lot, so there nyah nyah) is managing to obscure the core problem.

The rules for politicians' random forays into the taxpayers wallets are totally out of line with any commonsense, ethical or business-like practice.

Simply shunting the blame across the floor will only end in a mutual agreement between the parties that they stop talking about it, and eventually it will go away.

Which, of course, it will.

When it stops being news, it is no longer reported as news. And we, the commoners, are shafted yet again.

Pigs. Trough. Swill.

SM,(Minister for roolly clever namies)

"The single greatest weakness in Parrot's "travel rort" argument is that all these coalition costs were itemized, detailed, and submitted to the dept of Finance. Not one of these costs has been flagged as not complying with the regulations."

Well, that's just fine then.

Obviously you think it's fine and dandy for Abbott to charge the taxpayer for his own and his party's promotion.

When he was requested to repay the $9,400 in Battlelines expenses, it was because Finance were alerted by outside sources, media, etc. and even then he only remitted for the flights and they had to wring the comcar expenses out of him.

Slipper's $900 wasn't identified by Finance either....but....

Pericles,

You have a point.

But Abbott is particularly fond of claiming for "community engagement".

Rob Oakshot, who competed in similar events - said he wouldn't dream of claiming for them.

The Coalition in general appear to think that expenses are their right and privilege. I was particularly impressed with Joyce's "1 day study period" in Malaysia concocted to claim expenses for his travel back from the wedding in India.

well with such a failed selection of leaders all the Labour party can do is still be obsessed with abbott abbott and abbott. How long can such sour grapes go on? the illegals are slowing, the carbon tax looks a good thing to go and labour supporters hate the fact that finally we are seeing a little competence in Government.