Hi Pelly,

Talking of transparency.

There's a little too much for George Brandis at the moment.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-29/michael-smith-wedding-barnaby-joyce-george-brandis-expenses/4987502

But of course...

"Senator Brandis says to resolve any uncertainty he will pay the money back."

He earlier defended his use of taxpayer funds to attend the wedding...something about connections with shock jocks being of national significance (Lol!)

Of course, Peter Slipper offered to pay back his wrongly claimed travel allowance.

Unfortunately (for him) he wasn't permitted that option because "someone" had referred his case to the AFP.

Imagine if that happened to Mr Brandis?

But he'll probably be afforded the Minchin Protocol, just like Tone and his accidental claim for $9,400.

Poirot
By all accounts, the Minchin Protocol only kicks in when the offenders have been found out. Very convenient. The Ministers (Parliament) make the rules which is why there is a big problem with accountability coupled with reluctance of public servants to raise their heads above the safety of their bureaucratic bunkers. So politicians continue to be immune to prosecution within a culture that overlooks wrongdoing and when it does it is usually handled very quietly with nothing more said.

Abbott's book signing saga, Slipper's winery jaunt and the recent taxpayer funded wedding crashers are typical examples of where obvious transgressions are just shrugged away with an 'oh well' and other than repaying costs there are no repercussions. Imagine how often this goes, the public only hears about the stuff that gets in the media. Any other citizen would be charged with fraud or theft.

Yes, Pelican, the Minchin protocol is only offered if the problem is detected internally by Finance.

As I said, Slipper was referred to the AFP by an external party, hence the Protocol wasn't applied.

Btw, here's some raw footage of Mr Abbott scuttling away from those questions the other night.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhQYehcGweg&feature=youtu.be

Not tidied up for the news.

Hows that for our country's new leader...pretty stylish, you reckon?

Disgraceful!

Poirot, "here's some raw footage of Mr Abbott scuttling away from those questions the other night"

You don't imagine that your comment, more a slur with the unnecessary 'scuttling away from questions' is at all poorly based and unfair where the target was walking to a car and the journalist was hurling questions at him?

He's running and scuttling alright (he's keeping a secret, you know). Who's the burly woman he's scuttling with?

>>You don't imagine that your comment, more a slur with the unnecessary 'scuttling away from questions' is at all poorly based and unfair where the target was walking to a car<<

scuttling (intr.v.): to run or move with short hurried movements.

Maybe your eyesight is failing you, old man. There's more than walking in that video. Go back and watch closely around the 20-second mark. That gait is no trot or canter. It's certainly not a walk - not even an 'Olympic' walk. One might select a different intransient verb to describe such a gait, such as 'scurrying', but 'scuttling' seems a fair and reasonable description of the observable evidence.

Cheers,

Tony