THE public has had a gutfull of the double standards that exist in every area of modern Australian society whether that be in the capacity for some to avoid tax obligations, selective industry subsidisation or superannuation imbalance.

But there is nothing that generates white hot anger as much as the issue of parliamentary "entitlements" and any suggestion of abuse.

In recent years the actions of former Speakers Bronwyn Bishop through the "Choppergate" affair and Peter Slipper's flagrant expenditure have stood out among countless examples of taxpayers funding everything from family holidays to plane fares to allow politicians to attend the weddings of friends and, in cases, their own.

The Australian National Audit Office and the Australian Federal Police have now revealed in submissions to an independent inquiry into parliamentary entitlements sparked by "Choppergate", the difficulty faced in prosecuting those who abuse the system.

According to the audit office Peter Slipper's successful appeal in 2015 against his conviction for writing multi short-distance cab charge vouchers to cover extended trips to wineries outside Canberra, confirmed a level of "ambiguity" that effectively meant parliamentary business was whatever an MP determined it to be.

There is no question MPs should be supported to do the job they are elected to but equally it is increasingly apparent they require clear boundaries to curb levels of excess which would not be tolerated in the private sector and which certainly aren't by those they are elected to serve.