The stated purpose of the allowance is to reimburse costs for ACT MLAs who engage in routine communication with their constituents. The Bill specifically prohibits the use of this allowance for electioneering purposes. The Bill will also amend the Electoral Act 1992 to exempt expenditure from this new communication allowance from reporting requirements. That is, the allowance will not be included in the electoral cap under the Electoral Act.

I chaired the ACT Remuneration Tribunal in 2016 when various allowances were reviewed and clarified. At the time, there was a Discretionary Office Allowance (DOA) that was provided to some MLAs to allow a similar arrangement - the allowance was provided to all backbenchers but not ministers. It was external to the salary and direct allowances provided under the Remuneration Tribunal and was administered by the Office of the Legislative Assembly.

The Tribunal heard from MLAs and staff of the Legislative Assembly that this was a cumbersome allowance to administer and maintain.

It was difficult for staff of the Assembly to decide whether claims were or were not of an electoral nature. Blind Freddy could see that this would be a problem: beauty is in the eye of the beholder or electoral assessment is in the eye of the politician. It was doomed for failure and a significant reason for the Tribunal resolving to roll up the DOA and introduce a fixed communication allowance as part of MLA salaries - the intent was to enable politicians to spend an annual amount of $15,000 to communicate with their constituents. They would not need to seek preliminary approval from the Office of the Legislative Assembly.

However, MLAs would have to account for their expenditure via the requirements of the Australian Taxation Office. At the time, I recall being quizzed by media and others about the possibility of MLAs just pocketing their allowance. Politicians could take this risk, but the Tax Office would apply full taxation levies to those who chose to pop the amounts in their pocket. Additionally, the electorate would notice who they had or had not heard from.

Subsequently, I heard from a number of politicians about needing to have a communication allowance so that they could undertake mail outs and other major communication strategies. I noted on each occasion that the Tribunal was looking for our politicians to make the best use of their communications allowance that would not necessarily involve snail mail. I encouraged them to consider a range of different options other than the traditional Dear Voter letter that relied on the postal service. In other words, I asked them to use the technology (including hiring meeting rooms in electorates) that was available at their fingertips.

Apparently, I failed.

I am shocked that our incredibly smart MLAs are heading back down the path of a special allowance from the Office of the Legislative Assembly that will require subjective decisions to be made about whether an allowance is legitimate.

Many governments rely on a Remuneration Tribunal to decide on salaries and allowances for politicians. I am proud that the ACT as the newest jurisdiction in Australia took this approach early in its life. Its founders recognised the importance of having an arms' length approach to decisions around the salaries and allowances of its MLAs.

MLAs in the ACT are not overpaid. They work hard for their constituents. Their constituents are the least governed people in Australia: there is no local council and there is no upper house. There is just one level of government.

But MLAs must not start introducing allowances themselves - countries that do not have remuneration tribunals generally have a good deal of corruption around paying politicians. The Commonwealth has a Remuneration Tribunal and politicians don't have a separate arrangement via the Parliament. Jurisdictional governments that have a Remuneration Tribunal (all governments except Tasmania) do not have separate arrangements for payment of specific allowances.

The ACT must not embark on this slippery slope that can only result in the electorate being even more critical of politicians. If there are unintended consequences as a result of new requirements under the Electoral Act, then these should be worked through. The current work around is not the way to go about resolving the problem. The Remuneration Tribunal's original determination (1 of 2016) when the communication allowance was introduced was specific on items that could be purchased through the allowance. Perhaps this clause needs to be reviewed and included again in the current determination.

This sort of approach is one that does give politicians a bad name. My experience is that most politicians are extremely hard workers: they care about their electorate and they want to improve their society. This approach has not been thought through and I hope common sense will prevail.

The current proposal does not pass that well known measure of worth in politics: the pub test.