Junkets, a derogatory expression for a gift or a free benefit over and above a person's normal professional entitlements, come in all shapes and sizes. They are a widespread practice in the community, not restricted just to politicians but common among academics, journalists, the business community and the professions.
The undeclared receipt by the Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon of two free trips to China paid for by his Chinese-Australian friend, Ms Helen Liu, has raised several issues. Critics of junkets such as these firmly believe there is no such thing as a free lunch. They contend that anyone who accepts a junket, even when it is transparent and publicly declared, remains in the debt of the donor. Some would go further and claim that the donor always expects a return on their investment.
Free travel is just one form of junket. Any gift, whether it is free tickets to a football grand final or a study tour of an attractive country, brings with it the same questions.
Free international travel, paid for either by a foreign government or a private person or company has a long history. During the Cold War, for instance, both sides offered free study tours to their friends. Both the United States and the Soviet Union offered such junkets, as both training and a reward, to their supporters within Australian trade unions.
There has also been a long history of young (and future) politicians on all sides of politics accepting such junkets as part of international friendship programs. These uncontroversial programs, conducted by many governments around the world, are all about winning friends and influencing people. They are about putting one's nation on display, in the best possible light, before future world leaders.
Fitzgibbon's controversial trips in 2002 and 2005 have had the unintended consequence of revealing how common such junkets are. The media has reported that 61 MPs, from all parties, have accepted such trips since the November 2007 federal election. The most common destinations predictably are China, Israel, Taiwan and the US. There have been 109 occasions in all with one MP having undertaken a remarkable 13 free trips.
Such trips bring considerable legitimate benefits. Junkets, as with official parliamentary study tours, benefit the national interest as well as the individual by improving the operation of our parliament. We should all want parliamentary discussion to be as educated as possible. No one should want our affairs in the hands of parochial MPs who have scarcely set foot outside Australia. Better-informed MPs mean better debate in the parliament and in the respective party rooms. Those MPs, such as Fitzgibbon, who later become ministers will also have benefited from such prior education.
There are dangers in such free lunches, however, and they can be abused. Public discussion often concentrates on the potential for corruption but there are more mundane issues. Outright corruption is extremely rare.
The first of these issues is bias. The free trips are not spread around equally among countries. They are largely offered by the bigger, wealthier countries. To be properly educative the trips should also include poorer and weaker countries who, alas, cannot afford to be sponsoring free trips for MPs. Junkets can contribute to lop-sided debate. Where is the sense in over half of the trips being to just four countries?
The second issue is there is curriculum vitae-building going on among backbench MPs. Resumes inflated by overseas trips can be used both inside and outside politics. Inside parliament the overseas trips build the case for a promotion to the ministry by showing that the MP is a cosmopolitan, educated person who could handle a prized portfolio with an international dimension. The overseas trips also lead to connections that prove valuable after retirement from politics. The revolving-door syndrome from politics to the private sector is dangerous.
The third issue is the generosity of the donor may be abused by an MP who treats the trip as no more than a holiday for themselves and, sometimes, for a partner too. Such trips are junkets in the worst sense of the word. Such tripping around not only doesn't benefit the national interest but actually short-changes the local electorate. An MP who takes 13 overseas trips in 16 months, no matter how worthy they seem, must be getting close to neglecting his or her electorate.
Various reforms have been suggested.
Banning privately sponsored travel altogether would be throwing out the baby with the bath water. The benefits would be lost unless the travel was picked up by the public purse, which won't happen as the cost would be too great.
Increasing the pay of MPs and then expecting them personally to pay for their own professional travel would inevitably lead to less travel unless the pay increases were enormous.
Increasing the transparency of the whole system beyond the current requirements of the Register of Pecuniary Interests, as suggested by Senator Nick Xenophon, is a good idea. A detailed report of the trip should, as Xenophon suggests, be placed on the parliamentary website within 60 days. Though, as with all such regulation, this will lead unfortunately to increased paperwork for all concerned.
The best protection for the national interest, as it is with regulation of lobbying and political donations, is personal integrity. MPs need not only personal integrity but also the sophistication to sniff out propaganda and to avoid being seduced by the blandishments offered.
My inclination is always to be optimistic about the personal integrity of MPs. Others, with some justification unfortunately, will be inclined not to be so generous.
John Warhurst is adjunct professor of political science in the Faculty of Arts at the Australian National University.
John.Warhurst@anu.e du.au
Email a friend