Editorial: Time to end this perk nonsense

OPINION: Parliament's Speaker, Lockwood Smith, went on radio yesterday to defend MPs' travel entitlements.

The travel subsidy that entitles MPs and their partners to holiday internationally at public expense was not a perk, he said. It was a part of their remuneration.

Technically Dr Smith is correct. In 2003 the Remuneration Authority added up how much MPs were spending on personal travel and deducted the average from their salary packages.

However, Dr Smith's explanation ignores the legislative sleight of hand that preceded its determination. In the late 1990s and early part of this century a succession of reviews found that politicians were claiming allowances and entitlements that could not be justified as "actual and reasonable" for tax purposes.

Their value was estimated at almost $30,000 per MP. Other taxpayers in the same position would have faced stiff penalties for ducking their tax obligations. But the authority, whose members are government-appointed, gave MPs a $20,000 payrise to compensate for the loss of allowances and the MPs elected to retain their travel perks. Overnight they effectively received a 32 per cent payrise. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.

Rodney Hide's use of the travel subsidy to take his girlfriend on a fact-finding mission to Europe and North America and to Hawaii for a holiday is just the latest in a string of damaging revelations that have included: ACT MP Roger Douglas racking up a $55,494 travel bill in the first six months of the year after holidaying in Britain with his wife; Labour MP Chris Carter and his partner spending $71,613 in the same period; Deputy Prime Minister Bill English claiming nearly $1000 a week for living in his family home and UnitedFuture leader Peter Dunne spending $12,000 to take his wife to Europe.

With the exception of Mr English's housing claim and an unauthorised side trip to Paris by Mr Harawira, all the expenditure complies with Parliament's rules. However, the rules, do not stand up to scrutiny. They are not robust, they are not transparent and they are not policed with any vigour by party whips or parliamentary officials.

If Dr Smith wishes to end the embarrassment, he must change the system. For inspiration he should look to Britain where the scandal over MPs using expenses to pay for everything from porn movies to clearing a moat has led to the creation of an independent body to set British MPs' pay, pensions and allowances.

Soon British MPs will no longer be able to profit from capital gains on second homes bought with taxpayer assistance, no longer be eligible for mortgage assistance and no longer be able to claim for cleaning, gardening and furnishing. Also, all their expense claims will be published.

A similar regime would do wonders for public confidence here. MPs who seek to serve their constituents would find it presented no difficulties. MPs who view election to Parliament as an opportunity to feather their nests might find such a regime onerous. They are free though to test the market value of their talents elsewhere. It would be interesting to see how many employers were prepared to match their present pay, let alone their perks.

- © Fairfax NZ News