Age of Entitlement

Jay Weatherill, as the new ALP spearhead, has made a very strong start to his leadership of the State Government. An army is only as strong as its weakest point, however. The Liberal party strategists have wisely identified Jay’s close factional ally, Grace Portolesi, as Jay’s Achilles heel. As the scandal grows from a measley $7,000 mole hill into a full blown mountain, Jay is forced to weigh loyalty with political reality. In this article, I will argue that the general attitude towards Parliamentary entitlements is responsible for the current affair.

Members of Parliament are granted various entitlements, including travel and printing allowances. Each member, obviously, has a maximum amount, above which an MP is not able to spend. Using a bastardization of accounting terminology, there are two ways one can approach such an issue; the top down method or the bottom up method. An MP can adopt the bottom up method, where they do their job, spend as they feel is necessary, keeping an eye on how much they have spent to ensure that they are not running out of funds. This is the approach that most members of the community adopt to their house hold budgets.

A top down approach, however, begins by viewing the maximum amount of funds available and assuming that they MUST be spent. I call this the spoilt child approach. Billy got a fire truck, so I WANT my fire truck. But Jonny, you don’t like fire trucks. I don’t care, I am ENTITLED to it. An MP, hypothetically, getting towards the end of the financial year, could view the balance of their printing entitlements and realize they still have funds to print reams and reams of crap to flood the electorate with. Or they could just shrug their shoulders and let the money sit unspent, resolving to be more productive next year. I argue that an MP should use the necessities of their job as the governing principle, rather than the amount they are able to spend. If they adopt this approach, they will never get into trouble.

Grace Portolesi, in her horrendous interview this week with Matt and Dave, appeared to imply that with respect to Parliamentary travel spouse allowance, she adopts the top down approach. (I make no inference that this applies to her attitude to entitlements generally). Certainly, it cannot be argued that it was necessary to take her daughter to India. She said, to the effect, that because other MPs are entitled to the money, why should she miss out? She can’t take her husband, because of his employment, so she must take her daughter away, lest she be deprived of her metaphorical fire truck. It was my impression that her worship of the Parliamentary Entitlements deity was such that it was all out of her control. It has been written, we shall receive such funds each year, and thou shalt spend it, lest ye be ridiculed in the Blue Room for being a sucker. She would not be alone in this approach. When it comes to travel, many MPs squeeze every last drop out of their entitlements. Unfortunately, for her, the following of this commandment has landed her in political purgatory.

It must be said that, as far as ‘travel rorts” go, the amount that Portolesi spent seems piddling. To understand her current predicament, you must listen to her confrontational, remorseless, self-righteous interviews in the media. A simple apology would have sufficed, I am sure, despite the myriad of other controversies that have enflamed her in recent months. But of course, it is clear that she feels she has done nothing wrong. Her inability to see what she has done wrong could be the end of her, and by extension, her patron Jay.