Hi o sung wu, being of the old school both of us know about wrought's, as I posted earlier "A wrought is only a wrought if your not in on it."

I could tell you of a couple of stories in my experience about wrought's in private industry. The 'Cabcharge' docket when no cab was involved, or the "laundry" receipt (receipt books cost $2 at any newsagents) when the laundry was done back home on return. Long term, blokes believed it was a right to exploit the allowance system, after all they were giving up certain things for the benefit of the company, what is the difference with polititions, except in our case the company set the standard, with poly's they set their own standard, a case of kids in the lolly shop.
If we were in a pub having a beer I could tell you the one about the bloke and the prostitute charge, and he was up front, and he won the argument in the end. A line from his argument "are you saying my misses' is not high class, what is she, a street mole!" Justification for a $200 one off weekly charge. The counter "If we pay you, what happens if your wife finds out." The short answer was "Who bloody cares." I think they paid him, because he threaten not to "go away" again, and the company need him to, and the GM said "pay him, but keep it quite, put it under something else".

here's an interesting read
http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/comment-a-debt-recovery-letter-to-our-federal-mps/ar-AAlSgfa?li=AAavLaF&ocid=spartandhp

Hi there PAUL1405 & FOOL ON HILL...

Ms LEY has paid a significant penalty when you think about, apart from her leaving the Ministry somewhat in disgrace, and loss of considerable income by her departure therefrom, she'll either not stand at the next election or she'll lose endorsement, or she'll not get elected - in fact she's probably talked her way out of an entire career for all time, over a couple minor indiscretions. Where a contrite mea culpa may have been sufficient to take remove most of the heat from the issue.

Furthermore I'm not aware of her private circumstances, however she's just entered a contract to purchase a circa $700,000 apartment on the Gold Coast ? And my knowledge of the Law of Contract, she'll need to discharge her obligations pursuant to that contract. A somewhat silly lady by all accounts.

G'day there Paul, yeah mate the entire community works on the two tier settlement basis, with a liberal amount of rorting to sweeten the deal. I really don't see how it can be stopped other than increasing criminal penalties - then you've got catch 'em, and the most difficult, prove the matter in a Court of Law. Personally I don't think we'll ever eradicate rorting, moreover I'm led to understand it's an accepted sport in all countries on this small globe of ours ?

Howdy O Sung Wu,
I really don't see how it can be stopped other than increasing criminal penalties

Carrots or sticks?
Guess which works best?
The expense accounts etc are really part of the job, and part of the remuneration package.

Don't forget most of our Parliamentarians are lawyers, and most of them could earn better money elsewhere, as lobbyists and just as senior lawyers.

The thing to do is to make it transparent, legal, clear-cut, and to normalize it all, so we can see it happening and attribute it, to what these folk earn and deserve, whichever persuasion they belong to.

Legislation does not work in many, many areas and especially not for the three quarters of parliamentarians that are legal folk.

Legislating peoples' lives is an, ad hoc, back door form of totalitarianism. Totalitarianism does not work long-term, at all.

Don't forget, 'every unnecessary law, increases contempt of the law'. (anom saying)

Give them carrots, we want the best pollies, not media-circus, coupon-cashing, pensioner-bashing, corruption-centred, no-gooders.

That is what we, by and large, have, at the moment,and we have made it like that, over the millenia.

The way out is to pay folks and pay them on how well they produce what we want.

For starters abolish all travel allowances, after all the worker on a fraction of their income must pay all travel to and from work.

Is Mis, you cant abolish travel expenses as travel is a part of their job and, if one travels for work (other than from home to place of work) that is either paid for or deductable as an expense, and rightly so.

What should happen is travel expenses should be allowed at economy rates and if the MP wishes to upgrade, either to a first class seat, or a limo, they pay the difference from their after tax income.

The other joke is that their partner can travel for free as well, and lets face it, a single MP can now claim their mate to be their partner and fit in the odd game of golf.

I would also like to see an enquiry into expenses and make any repayments dated back to at least three terms as this will include most pollies from all parties.