Bloggers

The Government Hypocrisy

Mar 14, 2017

Would someone please advise why we have employment double standards when Members of Parliament are involved. Let me explain:-

NORMAL WORKER

For our example lets say John works for an employer in a senior management position – a position that John had been promoted to because of his ability – John would be expected, to be honest reliable and trustworthy.

John would be paid remuneration commiserate with the responsibilities of that position, and that position would come with certain additional benefits intended to assist the carrying out of his duties. It would be John’s responsibility to familiarise himself with the details of the benefits and John’s understanding would form part of an employment agreement.

The company that John works for may be a private company responsible to shareholders or a Company financed from the pubic purse and therefore responsible to the public.

During John’s employment, he made false claims for expenses and benefits of say $40,000 or $100,000, the amount does not matter as the false claims were an obvious breach of the employment agreement.

When the false claims are discovered what would happen to John?

John would be instantly suspended from his employment with the Company – perhaps with pay, perhaps without pay. The Police would be called, and an investigation would take place alleging John dishonestly appropriated money belonging to someone else and/or John dishonestly obtained money by deception. It could be argued that John, through his position, dishonestly obtained a pecuniary advantage depending on the claims.

It is also a possibility that John would be immediately sacked from the Company and escorted from the premises having returned Company property that went with his senior position. He would not be entitled to any further benefits.

When caught John may choose to repay the money to make it look good and to show remorse – doing so may also be taken as a sign of guilt.

Ignorance is no excuse in law – so is the fact that if proceed of crime are returned or repaid it does not negate the fact that John may have committed a criminal offence. Should a prima facia case of theft or deception be established, John would be charged and placed at the mercy of the courts.

John would lose not only his senior position with the Company but his employment with the Company would be terminated. There are no half measures.

John would risk the possibility of a custodial sentence when arraigned before the Court as theft as an employee is considered a very serious offence because it goes to the very heart of honesty.

MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Recently several Politicians have been caught having made substantial false claims for benefits -abusing the seniority of their position by doing so. This is commonly known as being caught with their noses in the trough. There is no need to mention the names of the Parliamentarians as they are well known from recent media reporting – but no one has questioned their continued employment.

A politicians employment is an interesting question in its self – who employs politicians. Most are members of political parties, the main two parties being well known, the situation is the same whether they are employed as a State or Federal Government Member of Parliament.

Members of Parliament normally commence their career by seeking endorsement from a political party. They campaign making numerous promises and hopefully win an election and take up the position as Member of Parliament to represent the community who voted in their favour.

No qualifications are required – the ability to become a member of Parliament is open to all, although a much better chance is had if you are a member of a popular party. Being a candidate standing for a large party does increase the possibility of becoming a member of the Government in power and a Minister within that Government or of the party in opposition,

As with any employment situation promotion is available – to the front bench and/or a Cabinet as a Minister with particular responsibilities e.g., Defence, Education and such like or if in opposition, a shadow ministry position. Members of the front bench and/or Cabinet Ministers receive a substantial increase in the already high income of a Member of Parliament plus they receive additional benefits intended to assist the carrying out of their duties.

Clearly, a member of parliament is employed as a public servant and is responsible to the public to ensure they carry out their duties honestly and diligently. Their remuneration including benefits come from Public Funds.

Why have the Members of Parliament who have been caught making excessive claims not been stood down from their primary position as a Member of Parliament? The allegations are that the Members of Parliament have stolen money from the Public purse and it matters not if they are a new Member of Parliament or an experienced Government Minister within the inner sanctum of Government.

It must be clearly understood that they are Members of Parliament first and being a Minister is a promotion clearly the same as the promotion of John above.

They have committed an offence as an employee and should be treated as such. Why have the Police, generally the Australia Federal Police, not been called to investigate and if a prima facia case is established the offenders placed before the courts.

Having been caught dishonestly appropriating Public money, the Member of Parliament repays the amount taken, doing so does not negate the fact that the money was dishonestly appropriated in the first place.

Reports indicate offences have mostly been committed by members of the front bench or the Cabinet Ministers of major parties and other senior positions such as Speaker. When the offence has been discovered it is normally reported that the member of parliament has resigned or has been asked to resign i.e. (fallen on his sword), the word sacked has not yet been used.

However, it is untrue to say the Member of Parliament has resigned. The Member of Parliament has only given up the position on the front bench or being Cabinet Minister or other senior position. They remain employed as a Member of Parliament and continue to obtain a substantial salary and benefits beholden to the position representing the same community against whom the offences were committed.

Surely it stands to reason the offender i.e. the Member of Parliament, who has stolen from the public purse should resign as a Member of Parliament making the parliamentary seat they represented vacant. The party they represent should cancel the endorsement of the offending
Member of Parliament. The Member of Parliament should be standing next to John in the job queue.

THE CONUNDRUM – PLEASE EXPLAIN

Theft or dishonesty as an employee is a serious offence – committing such offences as a representative of the people must rank as the most serious offence of employee dishonesty.

Having arrived at this point, I would like to know why the numerous Members of Parliament who have been found making false claims for benefits are still employed as Members of Parliament.

What is the difference between John and a Member of Parliament? Why have they not been treated the same way for what is the same offence?

I really would like someone to explain why such a double standard and hypocrisy by the Government is allowed. I Look forward with interest to your answers.