FORMER Fisher MP Peter Slipper's parliamentary entitlement used over nearly two decades stood out from the crowd but he has been by no means the only politician to attract the public's ire.

Mr Slipper was able to justify $29,000 in taxi, limo and Com Car hire in a single year as a parliamentary or electorate expense and regularly took the long way round to Canberra via Sydney for sittings of parliament.

But he was not the only one, with both major parties having in their ranks those with the capacity to justify as a taxpayer expense what others would consider their private affairs.

Member for Swan, Steve Irons, was outed for charging the cost of attending his own wedding to the public purse, Bronwyn Bishop chartered a helicopter for $5000 to attend a party fundraiser and George Brandis in 2011 billed the taxpayer $1700 in accommodation, flights and car hire to attend the wedding of a Melbourne shock jock.

And in 2013 as public disquiet about the flagrant use of the public purse grew louder, Tony Abbott repaid money he claimed in 2006 to cover the cost of attending the weddings of Mr Slipper and Sophie Mirabella.

In August, 2015, Prime Minister Mr Abbott established an independent review, headed by David Tune and John Conde, of the entire parliamentary entitlements systems.

Not surprisingly the review found the rules governing the system lacked clarity and transparency and acknowledged that some parliamentary travel had been 'inside entitlement but outside community expectations'.

RELATED: 

• BIG READ: The Peter Slipper saga
• TIMELINE: Politics, accusations, investigations
• Mal Brough's battle against he entitlement mentality
• Life after Peter Slipper for former staffer

The review committee considered the term 'entitlements' to be misleading, anachronistic and inappropriate.

"A more accurate and easily understood description of the resources provided to parliamentarians for their parliamentary business is 'work expenses'," it concluded.

The review found the language conveyed a sense of privilege rather than of fair compensation and support for legitimate work.

"An essential element of this compact is trust," it said.

"An opaque, complex expenses system will inevitably lead to errors and invite abuse. Real or perceived breaches of this trust undermine confidence in our parliamentarians. Such breaches become difficult to avoid when those using, administering and scrutinising expenses face such a complex system.

"A simple, effective and clear system to set and monitor parliamentarians' expenses is needed, one that supports parliamentarians and their staff in their work and allows them to operate inside the rules; enables administrators to provide an efficient and effective service; and assures the public this is happening. The current system does not do this well."

That's the conclusion reached by the Australian Federal Police and the Australian National Audit Office following the dismissal on appeal of Mr Slipper's conviction on three charges of dishonesty for using multiple vouchers to hide the fact he misused Cabcharge entitlements to visit wineries outside the ACT.

The AFP's submission to the review said the lack of a workable definition of parliamentary entitlements made it difficult as "the arbiter in determining parliamentary business is the member or senator themselves".

The Australian National Audit Office believed the "ambiguity" created by Mr Slipper's successful appeal meant parliamentary business was whatever the parliamentarian said it was.