When I started school at Albury North Infants School in 1936 it was emphasised that we had to tell the truth and never to swear. When we wanted to swear at a schoolmate, the nearest we could get away with was to tell them to go jump in the Murray River. I still use that phrase on occasion.

I am coming to the conclusion that these days the education of lawyers, politicians, teachers and others has been sadly neglected when it comes to the use of our English language and English Grammar. 

When I was doing my Arts course at what is now CSU, we had to read Lady Chatterley’s Lover. The whole class and our lecturer laughed when I said that my greatest impression of the book was the beauty of the English language.

Parliamentarians keep repeating the mantra that they claimed expenses “within the rules”. But who makes the rules? The parliamentarians themselves!

So Malcolm Turnbull is going to set up an independent board to see that the rules are adhered to. What if the Parliament sets the rule that a politician can claim expenses to go to his son’s birthday party on five separate occasions per year? Then the independent board would have to admit that such a claim was within the rules and allowable even though it was outrageous.

The board proposed by Malcolm Turnbull is therefore designed to maintain the present rorts but to protect politicians from criticism while pretending that there is oversight.

The taxation office already has appropriate definitions of what encompasses work-related expenses. These definitions were set by the very politicians who felt that they were fair for everyone except themselves. We don’t need an independent board to set politicians work-related expense claims, we only need politicians to stop being hypocrites and abide by the rules that they have already set for others.

I am writing regarding Peter MacLeod-Miller’s support for Sussan Ley. I'm not sure what aspect of her performance he is supporting. Is it her stellar contribution to the betterment of Australia? Her work in maintaining and improving our national health care system? Her ability to keep up the flying hours requirements of her pilot’s licence courtesy of the taxpayer, or is it just because one of our own is a player on the national political stage? That just makes all us locals walk a little taller doesn't it. 

I'm also interested in Father Peter using the church for partisan political purposes. Given that Sussan Ley’s party is obsessed with “debt and deficit”, I can make one suggestion that would definitely assist in reducing the debt.

The 2013 Charities Act provides 11 definitions of “charitable purpose” of which only one – “the advancement of religion” – is not required to demonstrate the public benefit of its activities. Religious bodies are not accountable to government or the people for how they make and spend their money. 

Religious bodies in Australia generate around $30 billion a year that is tax exempt, often through enterprises that are in direct competition with private, taxed businesses. If they were taxed, billions of dollars would be available for those services that are a drain on the federal budget – welfare, health and education, among others.

Australia would be a healthier, happier and better educated country if tax exemption for religious bodies (apart from their activity directly applicable to charitable work) was overturned and the subsequent increase in the revenue base was applied to the welfare of its citizens.