That’s about it from us this evening. The coming days will be filled with speculation about who will be appointed Speaker, but for now here’s where we’re at:
The prime minister, Tony Abbott, announced this afternoon that Bronwyn Bishop had written to the governor general to tender her resignation as Speaker. She will stay on as a backbencher.
Abbott said Bishop’s resignation had nothing to do with her doing anything wrong per se, but said it was instead an indication that the whole parliamentary expenses system was wrong.
To that end, there will be a root and branch review of the expenditure system, to make sure MPs can no longer make claims that are technically lawful but considered ridiculous by the public, such as spending $1,000 in one day on chartered limousines because they can ride in the bus lane.
Bishop later confirmed her resignation in her own statement, saying she had resigned out of “love and respect” for the Australian people.
Bill Shorten says Labor is open to the idea of an expenses review, but thinks Abbott only proposed it to deflect attention from Bishop’s expense claims and would like it duly noted that his attention is not deflected.
General consensus is that a new, less biased Speaker would be a very good thing.
As Tony Abbott said at this afternoon’s press conference:
This has obviously been a very difficult day for Bronwyn Bishop. It has been a very difficult day for Bronwyn Bishop. And I think we should respect the fact that it has been a very difficult day for Bronwyn Bishop.
There seems to be some division in Labor camps about whether they actually support the proposed expenses review.
Gillard government minister Craig Emerson, who resigned from parliament at the 2013 election, seems to think its not.
But as my colleague Shalailah Medora pointed out, Bill Shorten said they would consider it. His statement of just over an hour ago said:
Labor is up for a review of the entitlements system to ensure it is consistent with community expectations.
This doesn’t not absolve Mr Abbott of releasing the findings of the Finance Department’s investigation into Mrs Bishop’s alleged misuse of entitlements publicly.
If you’re still confused about the existing rules for parliamentary expenses, join the club.
As Lenore Taylor explains here, “the take home message is there are no rules”.
She writes:
So in the eyes of the law, politicians who do the wrong thing, or push the boundaries, can get away with almost anything. The only brake is the court of public opinion, if they get caught.
That’s basically Tony Abbott’s argument, although in his case it has the added benefit of not having to say publicly that a member of his government did anything wrong.
As some pointed out, the government is not always so forgiving of mucking up the paperwork.
Nick Xenophon, the independent South Australian senator, has drafted a bill governing parliamentary expenses based on a system introduced in the UK to deal with expenses scandals over there.
He welcomed today’s announcement of a review but said he didn’t think it would have the “teeth” of his proposed legislation, which includes making MP’s pay back twice what they owe on any disallowed claims.
He’s also accused Labor of playing politics by not supporting his bill, saying:
The risk here is that the opposition will crow about Bronwyn Bishop resigning, when the big picture is that the whole system of parliamentary entitlements must be fundamentally reformed.
This is not about Bishop – it’s about taxpayers being treated as pawns by both sides
This is the third time in four years that the Australian parliament has suddenly lost its Speaker, and the second time it lost a Speaker to an expenses scandal.
Hopefully past Tony Abbott has some helpful advice for present-day Tony Abbott to help him weather this storm. He made this comment at the departure of Harry Jenkins in 2011.
As to who the next Speaker should be, the internet recommendation engine appears to be highly favouring Dr Sharman Stone as a long-serving female Liberal MP who is a good bit less controversial than Bishop.
Fairfax’s Mark Kenny has given her the nod, calling her the “ideal choice” for her recent declaration that question time was “rubbish”. He also threw Teresa Gambaro and Jane Prentice into the ring.
Stone also had support from the opposition benches:
And then there are wildcard nominations:
My vote would be for James Earl Jones, but at 84 he is 14 years past the mandatory retirement age for high court judges which, applying Kenny’s rule, makes him seven times more inappropriate than Philip Ruddock or Bruce Scott.
She writes that while it’s right to by cynical about both Bishop’s resignation and Tony Abbott’s sudden concern about the rules governing expenses, some good could come from both.
She resigned, belatedly and reluctantly, for purely political reasons – because the Abbott government had run out of all other options and the prime minister was paying too high a personal price to continue to protect her.
But the damage from the whole affair and inevitable scrutiny of her successor might just mean they take a more even-handed approach to the job. The Coalition might even make good its pre-election promises that the Speaker should be truly independent, refrain from attending party room meetings (and presumably also party fundraisers).
The independent Member for Denison, Andrew Wilkie, has also put out a statement celebrating Bronwyn Bishop’s resignation. It opens strongly:
Thank God for that.
I’m inclined to think it would have been nice to end it there, Albo-style, but Wilkie continues:
Watching this saga unfold was worse than getting your wisdom teeth out.
Bronwyn Bishop’s resignation is overdue and must not be the end of action taken against her in particular. The Member for Mackellar’s misuse of entitlements is of remarkable proportions and must be investigated by the Australian Federal Police to find out if criminal fraud has occurred.
But the Prime Minister is wrong to suggest that this comes down to the gap between current entitlements and community expectations. The fact is that the current entitlements rules do not allow a Member or Senator to go somewhere principally for private reasons and then to certify it as an official trip. To do so is fraud.
Comments (…)
Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion