Speaker 1: I'm Ruby Jones and you're listening to seven AM. Over
Speaker 1: the past week, Labor Minister Annika Wells has become the
Speaker 1: face of a new debate over politicians perks. Revelations about
Speaker 1: an almost one hundred thousand dollars trip to New York
Speaker 1: to talk up Australia's team social media ban at the UN,
Speaker 1: followed by reports of taxpayer funded family travel to Grand Finals,
Speaker 1: ski fields and overseas sporting events, have seen her refer
Speaker 1: three and a half years of expenses to the Parliamentary Watchdog.
Speaker 1: The Prime Minister insists her claims within the rules, but
Speaker 1: the backlash and further questions over the spending of other
Speaker 1: MPs from all parties has opened up a bigger argument
Speaker 1: about whether the rules are fair and whether they match
Speaker 1: public expectations in a cost of living crisis. Today Press
Speaker 1: Gallery journalist Karen Middleton on parliamentary entitlements and whether this
Speaker 1: scandal will force change. It's Thursday, December eleventh. So Karen,
Speaker 1: the story of Anaka Well's spending I think begins when
Speaker 1: it became clear what the cost of her recent trip
Speaker 1: to New York to speak at the UN General Assembly
Speaker 1: came to light. So tell me.
Speaker 2: What we know, well, that was.
Speaker 3: Back in September and the government was brooking its impending
Speaker 3: social media ban. And what we now know is that
Speaker 3: she took a senior staff member and a public servant
Speaker 3: with her and the total cost of their flights was
Speaker 3: something like ninety four thousand dollars for example, where they
Speaker 3: first class flights And given the government's kind of sensitivity
Speaker 3: to a cost of living issues, do you think it
Speaker 3: passes the pub test?
Speaker 4: No, they weren't first class flights. We will disclose further
Speaker 4: through the usual EPIA processes. They that haven't rolled out yet.
Speaker 3: The reason we've been told there were business pass flights.
Speaker 3: We know they were at the last minute. Obviously they
Speaker 3: had to rustle up these flights quickly, but we haven't
Speaker 3: seen the detail. And no matter which way you slice
Speaker 3: the diced, it's very hard to get to a ninety
Speaker 3: four thousand dollar bill for three your return flights through
Speaker 3: New York, even just for three days. So that is
Speaker 3: how this all came to be subject to scrutiny. And
Speaker 3: now we've seen a whole litany of issues come to light.
Speaker 3: So what else has been uncovered? Well, her travel and
Speaker 3: her use of the family Reunion entitlements which exist under
Speaker 3: the Parliamentary Expensive Scheme.
Speaker 5: Communications Minister Anika Wells is under increased scrutiny over her
Speaker 5: use of taxpayer dollars for travel. Is now questions raised
Speaker 5: over a trip to Threadbow, Boxing Day, test matches and
Speaker 5: the Formula one Grand Prix.
Speaker 3: Politicians are allowed to bring their families to work events.
Speaker 3: The obviously have to be judicious about this, and Minister
Speaker 3: Wells is also the Sports Minister, so she goes to
Speaker 3: a lot of sporting events and it seems she's taken
Speaker 3: her family to some of those events. Her husband's gone
Speaker 3: to the AFL Grand Final with her. Her husband and
Speaker 3: children met up with her when she went to an
Speaker 3: event at threat Bow during the winter and they had
Speaker 3: a ski weekend there together. And we've also seen when
Speaker 3: she went to the Olympic Games in Paris. There's been
Speaker 3: some questions about the expenditure that occurred their one very
Speaker 3: expensive dinner of a night theay Riot in particular, that
Speaker 3: seems to add up to something like more than a
Speaker 3: thousand euros. So a lot of questions being asked about
Speaker 3: what is being portrayed by some critics as a pattern
Speaker 3: of behavior of liberal.
Speaker 2: Use of expenses.
Speaker 3: Now, she argues she's done nothing wrong, It's all within
Speaker 3: the guidelines.
Speaker 4: As a poluntarian, I have followed the rules and made
Speaker 4: myself available for these questions, as I'll continue to do.
Speaker 4: But just for the absolute avoidance of doubt, like Mark says,
Speaker 4: this has all been through IPR been found to follow
Speaker 4: the guidelines so far, but for the absolute of what
Speaker 4: it's a doubt, I'm happy.
Speaker 2: And then Matt has raised questions about the guidelines themselves.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let's talk a little more about how wells has
Speaker 1: responded as the pressure has mounted over there.
Speaker 2: What has she said?
Speaker 1: Well?
Speaker 3: I think part of the issue is that the government's response,
Speaker 3: initially from the Minister herself and then the Prime Minister
Speaker 3: to that first allegation, was well, it was an important thing,
Speaker 3: so of course she should go.
Speaker 4: This is about one of the most important public policy
Speaker 4: challenges of our time. The event that Emma spoke at,
Speaker 4: the event that let Them Be Kids in thirty six months,
Speaker 4: hosted alongside the Prime Minister and I was attended by
Speaker 4: multiple world leaders, the President of the EU.
Speaker 3: And as they've opened themselves up to these questions, by
Speaker 3: the nature of their response.
Speaker 6: I'll tell you what a trip to New York for
Speaker 6: two days is work?
Speaker 2: That's not fun.
Speaker 6: I flew to Washington, well, one hundred grand I flew
Speaker 6: to Washington recently. It would have cost more than one hundred.
Speaker 1: Okay, So alban Easy is at the point defending Annika
Speaker 1: Wells saying this is all within the accepted rules.
Speaker 2: What's the opposition made of it? They have made, hey,
Speaker 2: is what they have made. This is a gift from.
Speaker 3: The political gods at a time when all the focus, remember,
Speaker 3: has been on the opposition and what a shambalic state
Speaker 3: it's in. So they have grabbed this and run with
Speaker 3: it as hard as possible.
Speaker 4: This is part of a pattern of behavior that we're
Speaker 4: seeing from this minister, and she's throwing around taxpayer money
Speaker 4: like it's confetti.
Speaker 2: Lois and Macintosh.
Speaker 3: She's been out there criticizing Anaka Wells, so it's not
Speaker 3: surprising there's been a bit of a peak under the
Speaker 3: under the lid to make sure that her expenses are
Speaker 3: in order, having taken her son with her on a
Speaker 3: work trip which also coincided with the judo competition that
Speaker 3: he was in.
Speaker 7: So in June twenty twenty three, you traveled to the
Speaker 7: Gold Coast and at that time your son Biron was
Speaker 7: in the Australian National Judo Championships. So can you confirm
Speaker 7: your client seven hundred and sixty dollars in travel lounce
Speaker 7: and one thousand and eight dollars in return flights did
Speaker 7: that include your son's flight, my son's flight to Queensland.
Speaker 3: We've seen some questions about a couple of the Greens
Speaker 3: use of family entitlement and other members of Parliament as well.
Speaker 3: I think Minister Don Farrell, the Trade Minister in the government,
Speaker 3: he's got quite a large expenditure using the family reunion entitlement.
Speaker 3: So we're now seeing this expand and this is what happens.
Speaker 3: It becomes a war where if you attack us, we'll
Speaker 3: attack you. But finally, after a week and a half
Speaker 3: of all of this, we saw the Minister announce that
Speaker 3: she's asked the Independent Authority to ordit her expenses.
Speaker 1: The embattled Sports Minister Annika Wells has asked the Independent
Speaker 1: watchdog to order her travel expenses.
Speaker 5: After days of mounting pressure, the minister has been under fly.
Speaker 3: She believes they're all in line, but she's done that
Speaker 3: to try and just stop this story. On the eve
Speaker 3: of the social media band because it was just getting
Speaker 3: out of control.
Speaker 1: Okay, so everyone is claiming that their behavior is within
Speaker 1: the guidelines. However, it does seem like that is not
Speaker 1: satisfying journalists members of the public. So what does that
Speaker 1: tell you, I suppose about the disparity between what might
Speaker 1: actually be allowed and I suppose what people expect.
Speaker 3: Well, this is the big problem in a cost of
Speaker 3: living crisis in particular, but any time really the public
Speaker 3: expect a judicious use of what is in the end
Speaker 3: being money. They don't begrudge parliamentarians having their families with them,
Speaker 3: I think now, And then I think people accept that
Speaker 3: parliamentarians mostly work hard.
Speaker 2: And the argument is.
Speaker 3: Also being put that if you want to encourage people
Speaker 3: with young children into politics, and you need to make
Speaker 3: provision to ensure that they get to see their families
Speaker 3: a reasonable amount when they have to be away from
Speaker 3: home a lot.
Speaker 2: But I do think there.
Speaker 3: Is this sense that judgment needs to be applied as
Speaker 3: well as just the letter of the law.
Speaker 2: And I think that's where the question is coming in.
Speaker 3: It's about the optics of this and where the judgment
Speaker 3: is being applied. And this is the best, most judicious
Speaker 3: use of taxpayers money coming up.
Speaker 1: Politicians have lost their jobs over spending scandals, So will
Speaker 1: Wells withstand public scrutiny, Karen, Taxpayer and travel expenses are
Speaker 1: a trap that politicians seem to fall into more often
Speaker 1: than you might think. So what is unraveling now? How
Speaker 1: does that fit in to I guess the history of
Speaker 1: expense scandals across the board, both sides of politics, Ruby,
Speaker 1: we have seen.
Speaker 2: This movie many times before.
Speaker 3: The longer you hang around politics and what politicians, the
Speaker 3: more often you see this movie. Both sides in terms
Speaker 3: of the major parties and their affiliates have been involved
Speaker 3: in these kinds of scandals in the past. You know,
Speaker 3: we think most recently of things like Bromwin Bishop's use
Speaker 3: of a helicopter to get to an evented Victoria.
Speaker 8: You know that helicopter. Yes, I was short of time,
Speaker 8: but it is no excuse and it was an error
Speaker 8: of judgment. And really, as I said, I want to
Speaker 8: apologize to the Australian people because I feel like let
Speaker 8: them down.
Speaker 3: We saw Susan Lee go to an auction while she
Speaker 3: was on a work trip to the Gold Coast when
Speaker 3: she was a minister under Malcolm Turnbull's government and by
Speaker 3: herself an apartment.
Speaker 9: An impol's purchase is how the Health Minister is explaining
Speaker 9: her decision to buy a luxury apartment on a taxpayer
Speaker 9: funded trip. Susan Lee bought the unit on the Gold
Speaker 9: Coast during a twenty fifteen work visit.
Speaker 2: The purchase of this particular property was neither planned nor anticipated.
Speaker 3: She ended up losing her ministerial portfolio as a result
Speaker 3: of that. We've seen under Howard govern gig Or six
Speaker 3: ministers to travel warts allegations.
Speaker 2: So history is littered with examples of this.
Speaker 3: Like Sheet Robert, when he was a minister in the
Speaker 3: Coalition government went on a work trip to China. I
Speaker 3: was accepting gifts, portray himself in a manner that wasn't
Speaker 3: necessarily strictly with his portfolio. We had a business partner there.
Speaker 3: You know, lots of examples of these things. People have
Speaker 3: got into trouble. They can snowball, they can become a
Speaker 3: huge deal, not only for the person involved, but also
Speaker 3: for a government or the party that they are associated with.
Speaker 3: And people hate the misuse or the alleged misuse of entitlements,
Speaker 3: and especially when they're feeling under financial pressure. So the
Speaker 3: other thing here, and this is probably something that Anika
Speaker 3: Wells needs to think about, is it she's the sports
Speaker 3: Minister and that's a fun portfolio. So she's going to
Speaker 3: things for work that other people go to for fun.
Speaker 3: And I think there's an argument that when you have
Speaker 3: a job like that, yes it's a job, it takes
Speaker 3: you away from home a lot, you need to be
Speaker 3: extra alert to how it might look because you're probably
Speaker 3: already going to these things for free. You're getting paid
Speaker 3: to go there things that other people have to pay
Speaker 3: for and doing their leisure time. So you probably need
Speaker 3: to think twice if you want, on top of that
Speaker 3: to claim extra expenses and bring along the family. You
Speaker 3: just need to be aware of how that looks. And
Speaker 3: that might be more true in that portfolio, and in
Speaker 3: say the arts portfolio, than in one that is involving
Speaker 3: obligations that perhaps are are less fun.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you know many of those politicians that you mentioned,
Speaker 1: they have lost positions at least temporarily because or as
Speaker 1: a result of a scandal around this. So ultimately, do
Speaker 1: you get the sense that well spending is going to
Speaker 1: withstand public scrutiny.
Speaker 2: I think we don't really know then did that yet?
Speaker 3: I think, as we've discussed, she's made this decision to
Speaker 3: ask the authority to do an audit, she fully expects
Speaker 3: that that audit will find she's done nothing wrong under
Speaker 3: the guidelines, which we've already talked about. The announcement of
Speaker 3: that audit was really just designed as a political circuit breaker.
Speaker 3: It was supposed to try and stop this snowball effect.
Speaker 3: But it depends what they find. And we still haven't
Speaker 3: got an answer to the original question, which is how
Speaker 3: on Earth did three flights to New York coss ninety
Speaker 3: four thousand dollars. People do want to know the answer
Speaker 3: to that, And then there are a whole lot of
Speaker 3: other things that come after that have emerged that need
Speaker 3: an explanation. And I think, you know, the eternal lesson
Speaker 3: for the protagonists in all of these incidents is that
Speaker 3: you're much better off to be upfront explain yourself, and
Speaker 3: that makes it a lot less likely that this kind
Speaker 3: of ongoing digging will occur. Now, it's the obvious question
Speaker 3: when the first line of defense is well, it's with
Speaker 3: the guidelines. If the public doesn't feel satisfied with the answer,
Speaker 3: the obvious combat is well, the guidelines must need looking at.
Speaker 3: It doesn't seem like the Prime Minister is inclined to
Speaker 3: review the guidelines that would make him quite unpopular with
Speaker 3: all of his colleagues everyone across the Parliament. So he
Speaker 3: will be trying to contain this and make sure that
Speaker 3: this review is the end of it. But on the
Speaker 3: face of it, the public doesn't seem satisfied that the
Speaker 3: system is working in the best way it can to
Speaker 3: make the best use of taxplayer's resources.
Speaker 1: Well, Karen, thank you so much for via tat.
Speaker 2: Thanks Ruby.
Speaker 1: Also in the news today, advocates say Indigenous children continue
Speaker 1: to be removed from families at rates they have called obscene.
Speaker 1: The Family Matters Report released this week by the Secretariat
Speaker 1: of National Aboriginal and Islander Childcare has found Aboriginal and
Speaker 1: torrest rate Islander children are almost ten times more likely
Speaker 1: to be removed from their parents than non Indigenous children.
Speaker 1: The report found they also make up forty five percent
Speaker 1: of those in.
Speaker 2: Out of home care.
Speaker 1: The group's chief executive, Catherine Little, says not enough money
Speaker 1: is being spent on early intervention and community led support
Speaker 1: services to address issues like poverty, housing, insecurity, and racism,
Speaker 1: and Almost half of Australians are concerned about how to
Speaker 1: afford Christmas this year, according to a survey from the
Speaker 1: Salvation Army examining how the cost of living crisis is
Speaker 1: impacting families and the lead up to the holiday season.
Speaker 1: A survey found that more than one point seven million
Speaker 1: Australians will reach out to charity this year, with half
Speaker 1: doing so for the first time. It also found that
Speaker 1: over a million Australians don't plan on talking to their
Speaker 1: children about Christmas this year over concerns.
Speaker 2: They can't afford it.
Speaker 1: I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven AAS.
Speaker 2: Thanks for listening.