The notion that the parliament might retrospectively pass legislation to make an MP repay cash that may or may not have been legitimately claimed is, when you think about, extraordinary.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
That Premier Daniel Andrews is prepared to follow such a course is a measure of how poisonous this issue has become politically, not only for Labor, but for both sides. Andrews even goes so far as to insist that such laws will carry the legal clout to make disgraced MP Don Nardella pay up even if he leaves the parliament before the next election.
How this would work in reality is a bit of a mystery.
Make no mistake, Mr Nardella's decision to claim his primary residence was in Ocean Grove, thereby allowing him to get a lucrative "second residence" allowance, was, to put it mildly, badly out of step with public expectations.
But was it within the rules, however flawed and flimsy those rules might have been at the time? The jury is still out. That will depend on whether Nardella can prove he legitimately lived in Ocean Grove, albeit in a holiday park with a 'no permanent residents' policy.
A recent investigation found he failed to provide tax returns, travel records to and from his declared home base, and an address for health insurance or banking correspondence.
The only evidence he did hand over to back his claims was a drivers licence, vehicle registration, an electoral enrolment and some receipts.
Nardella may well be on shaky ground, with a police investigation looming. But surely it is jumping the gun to pass retrospective laws to recoup the lost cash ahead of any findings. It sets quite a precedent.
In other ways, Daniel Andrews' response to the scandal, which has dominated state politics for months now, ticks most of the boxes.
It includes greater transparency, with quarterly reporting of expense claims. It takes decisions about pay and entitlements out of the hands of politicians with the introduction of an independent tribunal. It streamlines to bewildering array of payments and tightens up the rules.
And if there is any doubt, it provides politicians with an independent "integrity adviser" to educate MPs about what they should and shouldn't do. It is a bit sad that it has come to his. And it is a bit sad that the actions of a few have tarnished so many.
But if this is what it takes to force our elected representatives to do the right thing, sobeit.
