Parliamentarians' expenses recent reforms: A briefing on Australia, Canada, United Kingdom and Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2009, the Australian, Brazilian and UK parliaments faced strong criticism - to say the least - over the issue of parliamentarians' expenses. The uncovering of widespread misuses of public resources by parliamentarians in each of these three countries was the subject of intense media and public attention, and prompted reform to the regulation and administration of the expenses regimes. This briefing is a descriptive account of the main features of these reforms. It addresses three key issues: (1) the nature of the response (short or long term); (2) the type of control system the reform has implemented (parliamentary self-regulation or regulation by external bodies); and (3) the nature of the content of the regulatory scheme itself (based on rules or principles). We also provide some background information on each country and some more detailed information on how the arrangements and systems for publicity, investigation and enforcement have been redesigned. The comparison of the three systems poses its challenges, as we have presidential and parliamentary systems with different historic backgrounds and traditions. Nevertheless, the similarities of the cases - both in how the misuses were uncovered and in how parliamentarians tried to placate public opinion by implementing immediate reforms - make the comparison worthwhile. More importantly, it identifies the experiences and lessons which may be useful for the ongoing reforms taking place in these countries. Canada was added for a different reason. Although its parliamentarians have not faced the same recent scandal and public scrutiny, we thought it might be useful to identify its approach to the regulation and administration
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".