Editorial: Busting the perks

OPINION: Several attempts at justification have been served up during the refreshing new era of transparency around MPs' allowances.

The travel perk, it is claimed, should be seen as a special boost to, or compensation for, inadequate salaries. The work offers little job security, and the heavy workload and frequent travel strains family and other relationships. The free domestic flights and 90 per cent international subsidy for long-standing members – and their partners – might be regarded as compensation for the sacrifices made in order to run an electorate office, even if just 70 out of the current 122 MPs officially carry that burden.

Such claims carry the dull thud of the hollow excuse. There has always been an element of "calling" in the job, MPs are paid comparatively well, and none of the parties have difficulty fielding candidates come election year. There are few jobs for life these days, and many families are placed under strain due to working commitments – including those forced to struggle on below average income. And offering a perk as a salary makeweight is inappropriate, clumsy and difficult to control – even if they are now regarded as legal conditions of employment that MPs, present and past, will fight to retain.

One problem with such allowances is that it is up to individuals as to how much use they make of them. Some will ignore pleas for restraint and meander around the globe with the girlfriend in tow, on the taxpayer, or construct living arrangements around picking up public help with the mortgage. Others will view the matter from a different ethical viewpoint – thereby, to follow the compensation argument – letting their consciences reduce their "earnings". It is easy to see how this can cause strife between colleagues and misunderstanding and resentment among the public. It is time for a thorough, independent review, with a mind to replacing these perks with the transparency of an appropriate salary.

- © Fairfax NZ News

Newest First

Oldest First