otb, you appear to have little appreciation of the difference between BB's massive over-reach and the largesse the public should allow politicians.

The public expects more of the judgement of their representatives than BB is remotely capable of, so she's gone, and rightly.

Why the Federal Police has not pursued matters, as it did with Slipper, absolutely stinks. A RC into this under a Labor gov't would elucidate matters, but why waste public money like Abbott has attacking unions? Would it change right-wing tendencies in the services? No.

I am left with the uncomfortable feeling that Abbott would have the services on his side if ever he mounted a case to threaten our fragile democracy. It's just a feeling in my guts. We've never seen his like.

Luciferase, "you appear to have little appreciation of the difference between BB's massive over-reach and the largesse the public should allow politicians"

With respect, you couldn't be more wrong. Please go back and read my posts.

Luciferase,

"I am left with the uncomfortable feeling that Abbott would have the services on his side if ever he mounted a case to threaten our fragile democracy. It's just a feeling in my guts. We've never seen his like."

Indeed.

The AFP in pursuance of Slipper went beyond the call of duty. Initially Ashby reported him for something in 2012. The AFP threw that out...but then went looking for something else to ping Slipper on and finally came up with the cab charges from 2010.

How's that for contrary treatment to that which Bronnie has enjoyed?

Not only did they not fling the initial issue back to Finance, but went out of their way to find something they thought would stick.

Finance, at the time, said it couldn't apply the Minchin Protocol because Slipper had been reported to the AFP by someone other than Finance.

This time, the AFP has given it back to Finance to "investigate".

We should note that Bronnie is "paying back" the helicopter monies - so obviously she has been able to take advantage of the Minchin Protocol even though Labor's Pat Conroy reported her to the AFP.

Stinks to high heaven.

I have read them and your effort to equate Gillian Triggs with BB is what hangs you. Otherwise, I respect your general input on many threads.

The best proposal so far for the oversight of politicians entitlements has been put forward by Greens democracy spokesperson Senator Lee Rhiannon. The Greens has long advocated a transparent system open to public scrutiny.
It would be easy to implement an entitlements procedure simmilar to that operating in the Scottish Parliament. Lee had this to say on the subject;

"Putting the public spotlight on how MPs spend their allowances will put pressure on MPs to do the right thing. The public should not have to wait for another inquiry to be completed before being given access to this information. The Greens have long advocated that our parliament replicate the user friendly system in the Scottish parliament that allows the public to quickly find how much MPs spend on accommodation, travel, staff and everything covered by allowances.
The Scottish parliamentary website shows how easy it is to open the door on how Australian MPs use their allowances. Making this information available should be a priority for the Abbott government. Such a website would help restore public confidence in our democratic institutions.
The Greens welcome a far reaching inquiry into parliamentary allowances and we will push for constructive recommendations to be quickly adopted. The last such inquiry - the 2010 Review of Parliamentary Entitlements - was largely ignored by both major parties with few of its recommendations adopted. MPs are elected by the public to work for the public good and the public have a right to know how MPs use the hundreds of millions of dollars of public money to undertake that work."

http://mspallowances.scottish.parliament.uk/

Paul1405,

It is good to know that the Greens are supporting a review. I will be interested to see if they are honest brokers in this for the public good and push for full transparency, for instance.

The scoping of the review is problematical. For instance, the ANAO should be included to give advice on that as the lead adviser where maintaining fiduciary responsibility is concerned. Then there is its report to consider.

I am not in favour of the Remuneration Tribunal having any lead role in the review or later implementation.

As shown by the excessive annual increases in politicians' pays, and they must be considered over-the-top where the both sides of governments have been parsimonious with (say) age pensions over that time, the Remuneration Tribunal is easily swayed by the Parliament into fixing politicians' salaries and entitlements against inappropriate benchmarks (eg APS Senior Executive Service, or senior executives of private companies), whereas politicians' pays and conditions should be compared with British and US politicians doing comparable work and with similar responsibilities.

Luceriferase,

Gillian Triggs
I am drawing a quite appropriate parallel between the unhappy and intolerable circumstance that both Bronwyn Bishop and Gillian Triggs have contributed to by their own hand, where both have managed to lose the confidence of a major section of the Parliament - worse, the elected government in Triggs' case - and of a major section of the Australian public.

In that case neither could perform their role as they should and their continued presence can only be corrosive to their representational ability and the Office/Commission they lead.

Frankly, what use is a Commissioner who does not enjoy the support of the federal Parliament?

The honorable and only course is for Gillian Triggs to resign. Her continued presence is not assisting the Commission to effectively perform its role. If the Commission does not have public support - the support of taxpayers - then what?