Van Badham theguardian.com, Thursday 10 October 2013
We have been footing the bill for politicians to attend races, weddings – even Ironman competitions. Those now in charge of spending should take note: don't mock the Australian people
'That much of the exposed rorting has taken place at the exploitation of weddings is particularly sick-making'. Photograph: Jason Stang/Corbis
My cousin Sophie got married last weekend. Sophie and I don't have much in common beyond some DNA and shared use of the English language but she's gorgeous, fun and has great taste, so I was thrilled to be invited. I flew from Melbourne to Sydney poshed up in my best wiggle dress, and while I didn't get down on the dance floor or avail myself of the champagne, I did certainly stuff my face with cupcakes.
I attended Soph's wedding with more than a reasonable expectation that my cousin Mark-the-engineer would be there. Mark works in coal seam gas fracking, a gas-extracting practice which is the ongoing subject of electoral concern due to its impact on the environment. I knew that an alliance of green groups with rural associations are fighting its introduction to communities, and was therefore keen to learn more from Mark in fracking's defence. Perhaps Mark also found it useful to engage in a discussion with a writer who has hit the streets to protest the very industry that employs him. Maybe he was just nodding politely and enjoyed the cupcakes – which is okay, because I love him and we were there to attend a wedding.
That these simple family values now need to be explained says a lot about Tony Abbott, given that his new government has been in for less than a month but is already enjoying its first expense scandal. Abbott himself has repaid more than $1,700 in entitlements related to his attendance at two weddings. His Labor counterparts, it must be said, are similarly involved in questionable travel claims. Rejecting such dire examples, neither cousin Mark or myself returned from Soph's wedding with our hands out to our employers, demanding that our expenses be paid back. Sure, seeing a cousin who can answer a couple of scientific questions about fracking may have enriched my understanding of something that I write about, but those conversations are the incidental benefits of a social experience, not its raison d'être.
I was living in Britain when an "expenses scandal" similar to this one exploded in the British media. Public horror that taxpayers' money had been invested in personal indulges such as pay-for-porn television streaming, home renovations and a floating duck temple rightfully destroyed more than one career in both major parties, and even sent politicians to jail.
That the British public had been told they must suffer cuts in public services in the midst of an economic crisis while money was spent on ornamental duckery was an insult to the very principle of representation – not to mention a direct mockery of the powerless by the privileged. I would hope that anyone whose self or loved ones are actually vulnerable to limitations imposed on proper healthcare or quality education due to a lack of public funds would never consider investing funds into luxury homes for scenic waterfowl.
Similarly, to charge attendance at exclusive weddings, parties or even Ironman events to the public purse is not really so much opportunistic money-grabbing as opportunistic money-grabbing as a status symbol. Barnaby Joyce, George Brandis, Wayne Swan and their colleagues are able to attend and enjoy events that the majority of their electorates cannot – but seemingly their enjoyment of these experiences seems to be enhanced by their power to make those who will never share them foot the bill. That these people are now in charge of determining the spending and policy that shall facilitate national health, education and civic infrastructure is enraging.
That much of the exposed rorting has taken place at the exploitation of weddings is particularly sick-making. It is the Liberal party, after all, that is so devoted to the sanctity of "traditional marriage" that it won't even allow a parliamentary conscience vote on allowing same-sex couples to wed. Given that their notion of "traditional marriage" demonstrably involves boogieing on down at public expense in the name of networking, recent events invalidate both their self-appointed moral authority over marriage and the sanctity of the institution itself. To write off the social significance of a wedding invitation as "work-related" is an insult to the couple and their family.
On evidence provided less than a month after the election, it's arguable that those who now lead us tangibly despise us. Abbott made himself attractive to many voters as an active, lycra-suited Ironman - yet I wonder how many Australians would have voted for him if they knew that their taxpayer money would be taken away from their public services to provide a cushy cash-money lining for his riding shorts? We were told at the time, remember, that there was an "economic crisis" that required an immediate change of government.
There are two social contracts being broken here. The first is that if you lucky enough to receive an invitation to a couple's wedding, you can eat all the cupcakes on offer as long as you bring a gift. Charging that gift, or your attendance, to the taxpayer, nullifies its value and corrupts any status you may claim for your position as well as the event itself. This informs the second contract: don't mock the Australian people. We attend weddings, participate in non-profit sports and volunteer in our communities not to hoover up loose change like sea cucumbers on the take, but to enjoy bonds of familial and social love that we value enough to never price. And if you need a research trip to work that out, Mr Abbott, the goddamn library is still goddamn free.
