Pity the lot of newfoundland and Labrador’s politicians. No more commemorative gold rings; gone are the slush funds to assist the needy in their districts; cast to the winds are the expense “top-ups” they handed themselves.

The days of bounty were over when the runaway overspending by members of the House of Assembly was revealed by the province’s auditor general in June 2006.

John Noseworthy’s report fingered current and former MHAs from all three political parties, five of whom overspent their constituency allowances by a combined total of $1.6 million.

Noseworthy also found the legislature’s system of financial controls lacked accountability, and MHAs governed themselves via a secretive oversight committee of the legislature — the Internal Economy Commission — that allowed abuses to go unchecked for more than 15 years.

The scandal has resulted in the resignation of a senior cabinet minister, an NDP MHA and the sudden retirement of the finance minister — who had chaired the IEC since the Tories won power in 2003. The police are now determining whether laws were broken, and Premier Danny Williams has asked Noseworthy to examine MHA expenses from 1990-2001.

Williams appointed the province’s chief justice, Derek Green, to complete a review of MHA compensation and spending, and come up with ways of eliminating abuses.

His report was delivered with a thump in June — 1,300 pages of condemnations, evaluations and recommendations.

AN EMBARRASSING INDICTMENT

Green’s findings are an embarrassing indictment of governments, Liberal and Tory, since the late 1980s. Intriguingly, Green saved his most stinging rebuke for the Williams administration, which, via the IEC, awarded a bonus of $2,875 to every MHA just weeks after legislating government workers back to work during a strike in 2004.

The culture of entitlement has been so deeply ingrained that only two of the province’s 48 MHAs declined to accept this payment. Only Williams and Elizabeth Marshall, a former auditor general, refused the money. This begs the question: why did they remain silent while this abuse went on?

Perhaps it is this question that prompted Williams to commit his government to implementing Green’s 80 recommendations. He also selected Marshall, who resigned from cabinet in 2004 over disagreements on policy direction, to draw up the necessary legislation and a code of practice for MHAs.

One significant change is the replacement of the IEC with a commission consisting of elected politicians from all three parties (rather than the two dominant parties). In contrast to the current IEC, all proceedings of the new commission will be open to the public. Whistle-blower legislation is also planned, along with the creation of a House of Assembly audit committee.

Most significant will be elimination of non-taxable allowances for MHAs, as well as discretionary funds that allowed them to spend $4,800 a year without receipts.

Taxpayers will pay more for their politicians if Green’s recommendations are implemented, because he suggests each MHA be given an office in his or her constituency in the belief that politicians should be close to their constituents. Whether the public wants to pay for this privilege won’t be known; the government is racing to get the new system in place before the October election. IE