Sick system needs to take a reality pill

OPINION: It seems that every time you shine a torch down the back of the couch - or into the dark recesses of MPs' pay and perks for that matter - you turn up something grubby and unsavoury.

So again this week, when Labour MP Chris Carter's decision to take no less than two months' leave highlighted the pseudo-penalty for politicians who take unjustified leave; not to mention the generosity shown to MPs who take approved leave.

Like almost every other area of MPs' pay and entitlements in recent years - from pay setting, to accommodation allowances, to expenses, to travel perks to misuse of credit cards to the information available about all of them - it is out of date and out of step with the public's view of what is acceptable.

To his eternal credit, Speaker Lockwood Smith has again reacted in the public interest.

He has in other areas already brought a breath of fresh air to stale self- interested rules by stepping up the level of disclosure - with the notable exceptions of himself and the Parliamentary Service - and in the latest case flagged the need for change to the little-known provisions of the 1979 Civil List Act.

His reasoning is bang on. To leave things as they rest would risk undermining - further - the public's respect for, and trust in, the institution of Parliament.

Prime Minister John Key is also due a share of credit for tidying up the provisions governing ministerial accommodation and other allowances in the wake of the Bill English debacle.

But on the broader issue, each time a new instance of MPs' feather-bedding emerges, it gives greater strength to the calls - led by Green co-leader Metiria Turei - for a comprehensive revamp of all the rules around MPs' pay and perks.

In the case of AWOL MPs, Dr Smith will push for a change as part of the Law Commission's current review of the Civil List Act. It is the least he could do, though it is more than any of his predecessors would have conceded.

How could anyone believe that an MP who takes leave with no reason should be given 14 days off without penalty and then face a derisory $10 a day "fine"? That makes a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket feel excruciating.

Had the $10 impost been indexed to inflation since the act was passed in 1979, it would have risen to $48. At that level - or perhaps closer to $100 a day, given the relative rises in politicians' pay in the intervening 31 years - it might act as a deterrent to abuse.

Under the current regime, MPs can absent themselves from Parliament for the whole 30 weeks it sits and lose less than a week's income - about $900 - from a salary of $130,000 plus expenses.

The special status of MPs aside - and accepting the need to preserve their independence of action and thought - it is almost impossible for the public at large to accept that.

Why are they limited to only five days' paid sick leave a year - and may have to provide evidence through a medical certificate - while an MP can take virtually indefinite leave with only a nugatory penalty if their explanation is not accepted?

(And let's not forget that, if their explanation is accepted, the time off can be equally protracted - just lacking the $10-a-day fine.)

Of course there are other pressures keeping MPs in line; not least the public thrashing they get if they rort the system. And to keep the current issue in perspective, the problem should arise very rarely.

Under normal circumstances the party whipping system ensures that leave is restricted and controlled by the party, which needs to ensure it has enough warm bodies in the precinct when a vote is called.

All the same, without getting into the merits or otherwise of Mr Carter's case - and his supporters' concerns suggest Mr Key should pull his head in rather than laugh and call for Mr Carter to front up and affirm he is unwell - the current law is an antiquated ass.

A change may not rate highly on the Government's legislative agenda, but a quick amendment to increase the penalty - while the other substantive issues of leave entitlement are addressed - can surely not be beyond Parliament's ken.

It would be a brave MP or party that voted against that in the present environment.

- © Fairfax NZ News