Saying sorry shouldn't be a tactic, Bronwyn Bishop, it should be a feeling

Extract from The Guardian

Lenore Taylor

The Speaker seems to be apologising for the look of what she did rather than for the actions themselves – three weeks after the initial revelations

Bronwyn Bishop chose to deliver her apology on a radio program rather than face the scrutiny that is part and parcel of a press conference. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP

Contact author

@lenoretaylor

Thursday 30 July 2015 11.53 AEST 

Madam Speaker, sorry is supposed to be a feeling, not a tactic.
The feeling is supposed to flow from an understanding that you have done the wrong thing, not from a dawning realisation that public fury isn’t “blowing over”, that you might not be able to “tough it out” and that many of your own colleagues think your position is untenable.
You have said you are sorry for “an error of judgment” and that you are repaying expense claims that “don’t look right”. But you continue to insist you haven’t broken the rules. You seem to be apologising for the look of what you did, not for the actions themselves.
And you’re doing it three weeks after the initial revelations, and only when your position is obviously under threat and with a no confidence motion in your position as Speaker looming.
You say your travel claims coinciding with two colleagues’ weddings are technically within the guidelines, but you are now repaying them anyway.

Surely taking secret meetings with unnamed sources to justify taxpayer funding for social engagements can’t be OK

If that’s the case why not answer questions about them? You say you held meetings to do with your position as a committee chair. Why can’t you tell us who you met or what you talked to them about or how the conversations informed the work of the committee?
If everything’s actually above board why not answer questions at a press conference? Somehow, during your apology interview on the Alan Jones radio show, he forgot to ask you any of these things.
Surely taking secret meetings with unnamed sources to justify taxpayer funding for social engagements can’t be OK. Surely that’s just wrong, as well as being a “bad look”, as you quite rightly say.

Bishop takes to Macquarie Radio to apologise for her error of judgment. Link to audio

And surely repaying the money doesn’t negate the questions because you signed the forms certifying that you were on committee business at the time. Could you possibly be worried about the consequences of making a false certification – is that why you find yourself having to be sorry about the vibe rather than the substance? Because if anyone makes a false certification that would mean they had done something very, very wrong.
To be fair, Madam Speaker, you aren’t the only politician who sees expenses scandals in terms of tactics and what they can get away with. Most politicians on both sides of politics look at them that way.
It’s why in the heat of the scandal everyone says oh, yes, the system must change, but then despite numerous inquiries over the years (an audit office report, the Belcher inquiry, the Williams inquiry) usually following yet another expenses or travel claim scandal, nothing substantial has changed in the way politicians travel claims are scrutinised.

It’s why the party whose MP is under fire scours the records for instances of possible wrongdoing on the other side, so the whole thing descends into mutually assured destruction until the immediate scandal blows over and they call a truce. (Anyone notice how the radio jocks were well armed on Thursday morning with lists of past Labor trangressions?)
It’s why the major parties then huddle around the Minchin protocol, established after the Howard government’s first travel scandal and named after the then special minister of state, Nick Minchin. It says when an allegation is relatively minor, an MP will be allowed to explain and repay any improperly or mistakenly claimed money. That’s fine, as far as it goes. It’s fair enough that the vast majority of politicians who try to do the right thing have a chance to rectify honest mistakes.
But while the public is convinced it doesn’t go far enough, the major parties have actually resisted most calls for greater scrutiny – independent oversight or, heaven forbid, a federal version of Icac.
This time, Madam Speaker, because your claims are seen as so egregious and because your apology is so conditional and so late, the voters – and some of your own colleagues – are demanding an act of actual contrition, that you stand aside. Your real feelings have been obvious for too long. Your tactics may have come too late.