I'm Ruby Jones and you're listening to seven AM. Over the past week, Labor Minister Annika Wells has become the face of a new debate over politicians perks. Revelations about an almost one hundred thousand dollars trip to New York to talk up Australia's team social media ban at the UN, followed by reports of taxpayer funded family travel to Grand Finals, ski fields and overseas sporting events, have seen her refer three and a half years of expenses to the Parliamentary Watchdog.
The Prime Minister insists her claims within the rules, but the backlash and further questions over the spending of other MPs from all parties has opened up a bigger argument about whether the rules are fair and whether they match public expectations in a cost of living crisis. Today Press Gallery journalist Karen Middleton on parliamentary entitlements and whether this
scandal will force change. It's Thursday, December eleventh. So Karen, the story of Anaka Well's spending I think begins when it became clear what the cost of her recent trip to New York to speak at the UN General Assembly came to light. So tell me.
What we know, well, that was.
Back in September and the government was brooking its impending social media ban. And what we now know is that she took a senior staff member and a public servant with her and the total cost of their flights was something like ninety four thousand dollars for example, where they first class flights And given the government's kind of sensitivity to a cost of living issues, do you think it passes the pub test?
No, they weren't first class flights. We will disclose further through the usual EPIA processes. They that haven't rolled out yet.
The reason we've been told there were business pass flights. We know they were at the last minute. Obviously they had to rustle up these flights quickly, but we haven't seen the detail. And no matter which way you slice the diced, it's very hard to get to a ninety four thousand dollar bill for three your return flights through New York, even just for three days. So that is how this all came to be subject to scrutiny. And now we've seen a whole litany of issues come to light.
So what else has been uncovered? Well, her travel and her use of the family Reunion entitlements which exist under the Parliamentary Expensive Scheme.
Communications Minister Anika Wells is under increased scrutiny over her use of taxpayer dollars for travel. Is now questions raised over a trip to Threadbow, Boxing Day, test matches and the Formula one Grand Prix.
Politicians are allowed to bring their families to work events. The obviously have to be judicious about this, and Minister Wells is also the Sports Minister, so she goes to a lot of sporting events and it seems she's taken her family to some of those events. Her husband's gone to the AFL Grand Final with her. Her husband and children met up with her when she went to an event at threat Bow during the winter and they had a ski weekend there together. And we've also seen when
she went to the Olympic Games in Paris. There's been some questions about the expenditure that occurred their one very expensive dinner of a night theay Riot in particular, that seems to add up to something like more than a thousand euros. So a lot of questions being asked about what is being portrayed by some critics as a pattern of behavior of liberal.
Use of expenses.
Now, she argues she's done nothing wrong, It's all within the guidelines.
As a poluntarian, I have followed the rules and made myself available for these questions, as I'll continue to do. But just for the absolute avoidance of doubt, like Mark says, this has all been through IPR been found to follow the guidelines so far, but for the absolute of what it's a doubt, I'm happy.
And then Matt has raised questions about the guidelines themselves.
Yeah, let's talk a little more about how wells has responded as the pressure has mounted over there.
What has she said?
Well?
I think part of the issue is that the government's response, initially from the Minister herself and then the Prime Minister to that first allegation, was well, it was an important thing, so of course she should go.
This is about one of the most important public policy challenges of our time. The event that Emma spoke at, the event that let Them Be Kids in thirty six months, hosted alongside the Prime Minister and I was attended by multiple world leaders, the President of the EU.
And as they've opened themselves up to these questions, by the nature of their response.
I'll tell you what a trip to New York for two days is work?
That's not fun.
I flew to Washington, well, one hundred grand I flew to Washington recently. It would have cost more than one hundred.
Okay, So alban Easy is at the point defending Annika Wells saying this is all within the accepted rules.
What's the opposition made of it? They have made, hey, is what they have made. This is a gift from.
The political gods at a time when all the focus, remember, has been on the opposition and what a shambalic state it's in. So they have grabbed this and run with it as hard as possible.
This is part of a pattern of behavior that we're seeing from this minister, and she's throwing around taxpayer money like it's confetti.
Lois and Macintosh.
She's been out there criticizing Anaka Wells, so it's not surprising there's been a bit of a peak under the under the lid to make sure that her expenses are in order, having taken her son with her on a work trip which also coincided with the judo competition that he was in.
So in June twenty twenty three, you traveled to the Gold Coast and at that time your son Biron was in the Australian National Judo Championships. So can you confirm your client seven hundred and sixty dollars in travel lounce and one thousand and eight dollars in return flights did that include your son's flight, my son's flight to Queensland.
We've seen some questions about a couple of the Greens use of family entitlement and other members of Parliament as well. I think Minister Don Farrell, the Trade Minister in the government, he's got quite a large expenditure using the family reunion entitlement. So we're now seeing this expand and this is what happens. It becomes a war where if you attack us, we'll
attack you. But finally, after a week and a half of all of this, we saw the Minister announce that she's asked the Independent Authority to ordit her expenses.
The embattled Sports Minister Annika Wells has asked the Independent watchdog to order her travel expenses.
After days of mounting pressure, the minister has been under fly.
She believes they're all in line, but she's done that to try and just stop this story. On the eve of the social media band because it was just getting out of control.
Okay, so everyone is claiming that their behavior is within the guidelines. However, it does seem like that is not satisfying journalists members of the public. So what does that tell you, I suppose about the disparity between what might actually be allowed and I suppose what people expect.
Well, this is the big problem in a cost of living crisis in particular, but any time really the public expect a judicious use of what is in the end being money. They don't begrudge parliamentarians having their families with them, I think now, And then I think people accept that parliamentarians mostly work hard.
And the argument is.
Also being put that if you want to encourage people with young children into politics, and you need to make provision to ensure that they get to see their families a reasonable amount when they have to be away from home a lot.
But I do think there.
Is this sense that judgment needs to be applied as well as just the letter of the law.
And I think that's where the question is coming in.
It's about the optics of this and where the judgment is being applied. And this is the best, most judicious use of taxpayers money coming up.
Politicians have lost their jobs over spending scandals, So will Wells withstand public scrutiny, Karen, Taxpayer and travel expenses are a trap that politicians seem to fall into more often than you might think. So what is unraveling now? How does that fit in to I guess the history of expense scandals across the board, both sides of politics, Ruby, we have seen.
This movie many times before.
The longer you hang around politics and what politicians, the more often you see this movie. Both sides in terms of the major parties and their affiliates have been involved in these kinds of scandals in the past. You know, we think most recently of things like Bromwin Bishop's use of a helicopter to get to an evented Victoria.
You know that helicopter. Yes, I was short of time, but it is no excuse and it was an error of judgment. And really, as I said, I want to apologize to the Australian people because I feel like let them down.
We saw Susan Lee go to an auction while she was on a work trip to the Gold Coast when she was a minister under Malcolm Turnbull's government and by herself an apartment.
An impol's purchase is how the Health Minister is explaining her decision to buy a luxury apartment on a taxpayer funded trip. Susan Lee bought the unit on the Gold Coast during a twenty fifteen work visit.
The purchase of this particular property was neither planned nor anticipated.
She ended up losing her ministerial portfolio as a result of that. We've seen under Howard govern gig Or six ministers to travel warts allegations.
So history is littered with examples of this.
Like Sheet Robert, when he was a minister in the Coalition government went on a work trip to China. I was accepting gifts, portray himself in a manner that wasn't necessarily strictly with his portfolio. We had a business partner there. You know, lots of examples of these things. People have got into trouble. They can snowball, they can become a huge deal, not only for the person involved, but also for a government or the party that they are associated with.
And people hate the misuse or the alleged misuse of entitlements, and especially when they're feeling under financial pressure. So the other thing here, and this is probably something that Anika Wells needs to think about, is it she's the sports Minister and that's a fun portfolio. So she's going to things for work that other people go to for fun.
And I think there's an argument that when you have a job like that, yes it's a job, it takes you away from home a lot, you need to be extra alert to how it might look because you're probably already going to these things for free. You're getting paid to go there things that other people have to pay for and doing their leisure time. So you probably need to think twice if you want, on top of that to claim extra expenses and bring along the family. You
just need to be aware of how that looks. And that might be more true in that portfolio, and in say the arts portfolio, than in one that is involving obligations that perhaps are are less fun.
Yeah, and you know many of those politicians that you mentioned, they have lost positions at least temporarily because or as a result of a scandal around this. So ultimately, do you get the sense that well spending is going to withstand public scrutiny.
I think we don't really know then did that yet?
I think, as we've discussed, she's made this decision to ask the authority to do an audit, she fully expects that that audit will find she's done nothing wrong under the guidelines, which we've already talked about. The announcement of that audit was really just designed as a political circuit breaker. It was supposed to try and stop this snowball effect.
But it depends what they find. And we still haven't got an answer to the original question, which is how on Earth did three flights to New York coss ninety four thousand dollars. People do want to know the answer to that, And then there are a whole lot of other things that come after that have emerged that need
an explanation. And I think, you know, the eternal lesson for the protagonists in all of these incidents is that you're much better off to be upfront explain yourself, and that makes it a lot less likely that this kind of ongoing digging will occur. Now, it's the obvious question when the first line of defense is well, it's with the guidelines. If the public doesn't feel satisfied with the answer, the obvious combat is well, the guidelines must need looking at.
It doesn't seem like the Prime Minister is inclined to review the guidelines that would make him quite unpopular with all of his colleagues everyone across the Parliament. So he will be trying to contain this and make sure that this review is the end of it. But on the face of it, the public doesn't seem satisfied that the system is working in the best way it can to make the best use of taxplayer's resources.
Well, Karen, thank you so much for via tat.
Thanks Ruby.
Also in the news today, advocates say Indigenous children continue to be removed from families at rates they have called obscene. The Family Matters Report released this week by the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Childcare has found Aboriginal and torrest rate Islander children are almost ten times more likely to be removed from their parents than non Indigenous children. The report found they also make up forty five percent of those in.
Out of home care.
The group's chief executive, Catherine Little, says not enough money is being spent on early intervention and community led support services to address issues like poverty, housing, insecurity, and racism, and Almost half of Australians are concerned about how to afford Christmas this year, according to a survey from the Salvation Army examining how the cost of living crisis is impacting families and the lead up to the holiday season.
A survey found that more than one point seven million Australians will reach out to charity this year, with half doing so for the first time. It also found that over a million Australians don't plan on talking to their children about Christmas this year over concerns.
They can't afford it.
I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven AAS.
Thanks for listening.