The government might be trying to slash its print spending, but individual MPs are happy to shell out millions of our tax dollars filling your letterbox with election advertising.

In fact, Federal MPs have used an expenses loophole to spend more than $19m of taxpayers’ money printing campaign ads in the past two elections.

Politicians are allowed to claim the cost of communication like newspaper ads, brochures and direct mail to their constituents if they are for ‘electorate’ or ‘parliamentary’ purposes.

However, according to reports by Australian Regional Media, the rules on what is eligible are not defined, allowing MPs to easily use it for election advertising.

This is in addition to the $113m in public money allocated for campaigning and reimbursed by the Australian Electoral Commission during the two polls.

[Related: More government work news]

Of the $112m politicians claimed since mid-2009, 17 per cent, more than $19m was spent in the six-week 2010 and 2013 campaign periods.

The numbers are even more striking during election years themselves – almost half of printing entitlements claimed in July to December of 2010 were spent during the election period, and jumped to 70 per cent in 2013.

At the 2010 poll, 19 politicians spent at least 90 per cent of their printing allowance during the campaign, and 54 spent more than 70 per cent.

This ballooned to 44 MPs spending more than 90 per cent in the 2013 campaign, and 135 spending more than 70 per cent. There are 226 MPs in the Australian Parliament.

Former prime ministers Tony Abbott and Kevin Rudd had some of the biggest claims. Abbott spent $103,166 during the last half of 2013, 97 per cent of which was spent during the election, as was 99 per cent of Rudd’s $125,062.

Other politicians blowing almost all of their allowances during campaigns include Petrie MP Yvette D'Ath (99 per cent), deputy prime minister Warren Truss (97), assistant treasurer Kelly O'Dwyer (99), and former speaker Peter Slipper (100).

The top overall print spender in the last half of 2013 was Victorian MP Darren Cheeseman with $136,420, 80 per cent of which was spent during the campaign. It was not much help though, as he lost his seat by seven per cent.

Critics of the entitlement say the vague definition of what is electorate or parliamentary purposes gives incumbents an advantage over challengers who do not have as many resources.

A 2010 review of entitlements recommended banning their use during election campaigns, but neither party has made a move to act on it. A new review is now underway in the wake of the Bronwyn Bishop helicopter scandal.

Comment below to have your say on this story.

If you have a news story or tip-off, get in touch at editorial@sprinter.com.au.  

Sign up to the Sprinter newsletter