This was the latest review into MPs' entitlements that the Audit Office has conducted over the past 15 years. All those reviews have delivered blunt warnings about how oddly complex the rules are, especially for travel entitlements. All have noted that the rules are open to abuse, and difficult to understand and manage. Illustration: John Spooner Our current rules are a mishmash of legislation, determinations, rules, guidelines and conventions. There is no clear definition of key terms to help define when an MP's trip should be designated as official business versus electorate business or parliamentary business. Individual MPs are given a great deal of leeway to judge for themselves if their travel is within the rules and whether it is an effective, economical and ethical use of public money. Some take an extremely generous view of their own value and what is reasonable. But the public instinctively know it shouldn't be this difficult to work out whether an MP chartering a helicopter to get to a party fundraiser is breaking the rules. It should be a similar process to how rules are made for taxpayers. Under our tax system, taxpayers are told what are "allowable deductions" so tradespeople know they can claim a tax deduction for a safety-coloured vest if they use it on the job, but not protective equipment costing more than $300. Or shop assistants can claim for dry-cleaning a uniform if it has their employer's logo permanently on it, but not if it is a plain uniform. In 2009, the Special Minister of State established an independent committee to conduct a review of MPs' entitlements. This was the first thorough review in more than 35 years. It made 39 recommendations in 2010.

Five years later, although there have been some changes and improvements, there has still been no formal government response to those 39 recommendations. And there has been no fundamental reform of the way MPs' entitlements are defined or managed. In terms of policing how MPs approach their entitlements, the 2009 Audit Office review found that the Finance Department "adopted a relatively gentle approach to entitlements administration". This is the system that will now judge Bishop's actions. So many warnings have been ignored, so many ideas for improvement have been sidelined and so little change has happened, that the only reasonable conclusion to draw is that the parliamentary entitlements system is supposed to be inept. It is supposed to be opaque, with big gaps and large grey areas of interpretation, and therefore, open to abuse. Most MPs push into the grey areas of the rules on the perks of office without crossing over into public scandal. When some do cross that line, they might be held out as an individual sacrifice while the ambiguous rules remain in place until the next extravagant MP crosses the line. And so the cycle goes on. Will a headline-grabbing helicopter ride change all of this when other scandalous abuses have failed to lead to meaningful change?

As a public symbol of hypocrisy in a government that says it wants economic responsibility, she is now a political liability. As a speaker, Bishop has, by her own admission, failed to use public money in the most efficient and effective manner. This is one of the key criteria office holders have to consider when making travel claims. As a result of her "error of judgment", she has damaged the standing of Parliament. Her political antenna was so off kilter that she didn't view her actions as problematic. As a public symbol of hypocrisy in a government that says it wants economic responsibility, she is now a political liability. If Bishop manages to stay on as speaker, thanks to Tony Abbott's strong loyalty to her, and her prime motivation is to educate Australians about Parliament in her official capacity as speaker, presumably she is willing and available to appear at fundraisers for other parties including Labor, the Greens and the Sex Party. But whether Bishop stays or goes is not the biggest concern here, because neither outcome will change the system. The real problem is not the occasional extravagant, out-of-touch politicians who get caught, but our system with its lack of definitions and clear rules and its self-regulation by MPs. At a minimum, the government needs to immediately implement the 39 recommendations and set clear guidelines that cover a range of scenarios for MPs about what is allowable and what can be deemed "official business". The opposition, other parties and independents should back any such moves towards a cleaner and clearer system. But an even better outcome would be the establishment of an independent statutory authority as in Britain. Only a great deal of public and media pressure will make that a realistic option.

Sally Young is an Age columnist and associate professor of political science at the University of Melbourne. She was employed as a consultant on the Australian National Audit Office's audit of the administration of Commonwealth Parliamentarians' Entitlements in 2009.