An allowance is not an expense claim
July 31st, 2009 at 2:16 pm by David FarrarI am amazed at how many journalists get this wrong. Today Martin Kay in the Dom Post says:
Spending on parliamentary travel and accommodation is not subject to the Official Information Act, and MPs had until now resisted calls to provide details.
Though they broke new ground with yesterday’s release, they are steadfastly refusing to make public how they use annual allowances of at least $14,800 each for out-of-pocket expenses.
This makes it sounds like the information is there to be released – it is not. It is rather silly to keep demanding that something be released which does not exist.
As I have previously blogged the Remuneration Authority gives MPs an allowance of $14,800 a year to cover all their incidental work related expenses. A lot of these are meals away from home. This allowance is paid alongside the salary fortnightly. It is based on what the IRD and the Authority have previously determined is the average level of work related expenses. It is the equivalent of a per diem.
The Parliamentary Service does not have a record of individual expenses related to the allowance. That is because it is an allowance, not an expense claim. The MPs themselves do not have this info. They don’t spend half an hour a day writing down the details of every cup of coffee they had, or raffle ticket they purchased etc.
There is no info to be released. So would the media please stop calling for it. It’s inane. They could call for the system to revert back from an allowance system to a claim system but personally that would be a retrograde step as it would encourage MPs to max out their claims as they did in the UK. An allowance based on historical average data is in my opinion a far better system.
Related posts:
- MPs expense allowances
- Are legal expenses a work expense?
- Bill pays back allowance
- Candidate refuses to file expenses claim
July 31st, 2009 at 2:17 pm
They are desperate for a UK-type expose
Vote:July 31st, 2009 at 2:32 pm
the MSM has made an appalling job of trying to create a story out of this issue – there isnt one – RNZ in particular beat it up this am – I hope we are not going to have to put up with a similar approach evry three months when the data is released
Vote:July 31st, 2009 at 2:40 pm
It’s funny really, the media are searching for something big in this. But it seems routine. Nothing much stands out. Differences are easily explainable. The best morsel is some old codger who uses what he “deserves” due to an obsolete entitlement, and that is nothing more than a minor act of irony.
They have nothing to compare it to. If they had the totals for the corresponding 6 months last year, or maybe more comparable for the same 6 months last term, and they had risen 20%, then they could have something to back up their whirlwind of “so what?” Hopefully they will forget it over the weekend.
Vote:July 31st, 2009 at 2:42 pm
That said, why are List MPs allowed to claim travel or accommodation allowances? They do not have constituencies to visit, and therefore do not have to maintain a ‘home’ outside Wellington. Their place of work is Parliament. If they choose to leave the wife and kids at home in Ponsonby, and travel to and from Wellington every week, sobeit. Just don’t ask me to pay for it.
Also, for Roger Douglas to claim 90% of his (and his wife’s) airfares to London for a family visit is simply ridiculous. It may be an entitlement under his old employment contract, but he should have been smart enough to release how bad it looks to claim it now, in the middle of a recession, and while he and his colleagues are telling everyone else to tighten their belts.
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Vote:July 31st, 2009 at 2:50 pm
I want to know how much of Phil Goff’s vast internal travel expenditure was used to ferry in his volunteer army for the Mt Albert by-election. Not quite normal or routine, I would say Cerium.
Lets see the breakdown of his expenses for each week of the six month period.
Vote:July 31st, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Toby you got it spot on in my books.
Vote:July 31st, 2009 at 2:58 pm
How would that happen AF? Would he disguise them all as himself and lend out multiple copies of his ID? A plane full of Goff look-a-likes? And still probably no one would notice.
Vote:July 31st, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Cerium it could happen the same way our ex PM arranged a gummint limo to transport her ginga MP to the airport. I know the son she never had is an ugly bastard but he’s no patch on Helen Clark.
Vote:July 31st, 2009 at 3:15 pm
OK, you’d better let Martin Kay know, he might want something interesting for a story. Or not.
Vote:July 31st, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Why would I waste my time telling anything of value to an idiot who doesn’t know the difference between an allowance and an expense claim? Let him get off his arse for once and find his own story.
Hell it must be hard being a journo after nine years of spoon feeding by the battalions of spin doctors your lot employed. No wonder The Herald got sucked in on Choudary, Burgess and Fuller. Not a single probing question asked. The poor bastards actually have to do some work now.
John Drinnan was sopt on when he wrote that Paula Bennett would not need to have released any information if the slack arsed media had simply done its job and asked a few questions.
Vote:July 31st, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Who is “your lot”? If you are trying to refer to “my lot” you are way off the mark, I am much less then a lot.
What will you waste your time on when “the last nine years” gets past it’s used by date (that was last year wasn’t it?). At least the media don’t spend much time regurgitating old abuse.
I agree with you and Drinnan on the Bennett thing – the media (including on the net) were a bit slow off the mark with that.
Vote:August 1st, 2009 at 4:30 am
I quite agree.
Given the service the great Sir Roger has done New Zealand he should have been given 100% of the costs of the trip (and any trip he wishes to take) in advance.
Vote:August 1st, 2009 at 10:33 am
Yes POOR POLITICS by Douglas, he came across pretty badly and there were pretty bad political signals being sent by his explanation. Sure if it was done in advance he still would have had the spending but his explanation would have been more congruent (with his claim based on his prior period as an MP/Minister as opposed to coming across as a current back bencher trying to justify himself).
You want to be able to set an example (tighten your own belt when you publicly want others to do the same due to a recession) that is congruent with ones philosophy and principles and it amazed me how hypocritical Douglas and Hide (based on his prior perk busting) for defending him came across… If this had been a Labour back bencher in the last government (who had slipped under the radar by returning to Parliament) in the same circumstances ACT would have issued press releases against them. It just shows that when the spotlight is on you things are very different indeed…
Sure the rules are the rules and Douglas didn’t break them but he exercised extremely POOR POLITICS and will have to be a bit sharper in future…
When this story came out I Googled around for the UK examples and watched things like the Nixon Checkers speech again and Douglas could learn a lot by watching that speech…
Vote:August 1st, 2009 at 5:58 pm
so..you nattys all think it is ok for english..earlier this year..
..to change the ownership of his wellington house..bought in 2003..(freehold…?..now..?..)..to a trust..
..so that trust can charge the taxpayers a grand a week rent..?
..that’s all ‘fine’..
..eh..?
..believe me..!
..these mp’s..from all parties..have got a tiger by the tail..
..with this one..
but the big hogs are really ‘troughing’..eh..?
..all the while preaching ‘restraint’/'we can’t do anything to help the poorest’//our hands are tied’/it’s the international economic recession..it’s not out fault..!
..how doya reckon that’s going to go down out there in (the ever-growing) ‘struggle st’..eh..?
..like a cupa cold sick..?
..you bet your kagoolies it will..!..eh..?
..and come next election..
..you lot will be so ‘out’..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote: