An independent regime for MPs travel
March 29th, 2012 at 2:00 pm by David FarrarNZ Herald reports:
Travel perks for former MPs will now be protected in law under legislation debated by Parliament yesterday but the amount spent by each individual former MP will be revealed annually.
The Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill costs taxpayers about $1.3 million a year.
Former MPs elected before 1999 and their spouses and widows and widowers are entitled to rebates on domestic and international airfares.
I would’t say the bill will cost taxpayers anything. The existing entitlements are what cost the taxpayers.
Incidentally only 23 of the 121 current MPs will enjoy travel perks when they retire.
The bill shifts responsibility for travel and accommodation of MPs and ministers away from the Speaker and Prime Minister to the Remuneration Authority plus an additional person with knowledge in the area.
This is the key change, and very welcome. Under the joint leadership of John Key and Lockwood Smith there has been both a unprecedented level of transparency with travel expenses released every quarter and every single item on ministerial credit cards released. Key has also reduced some of the Ministerial entitlements such as spousal travel overseas.
The bill also sets in law a requirement by MPs to disclose their travel and accommodation costs quarterly, a practice instigated on a voluntary basis by Speaker Lockwood Smith.
And the bill contains what is known as the “Chris Carter clause” after the ex-Labour MP who went awol after his expulsion from caucus: it increases the penalty for being absent from Parliament without good cause from its present $10 a day to $270 a day.
I think Carter also went AWOL before his expulsion.
Tags: MPs expenses, perks, Remuneration Authority
March 29th, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Ha Ha Chris Carter’s lasting legacy….
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 2:34 pm
I fail to understand why the fuck a former MP gets travel rebates from the taxpayer?
And current MP’s should get no more expenses covered than what is required to do their job. God I feel like going into a rant over this. Thankfully we have Key and Smith which has helped stop the rorting anyway.
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Former MPs who entered after or in 1999 do not when the rules change. The argument is that those who entered earlier had the perk as part of their “employment contract”, and was in lieu of salary. Not all like that argument.
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 2:50 pm
It’s the only thing closely resembling an argument for it I guess.
Do any former MP’s choose not to claim this entitlement? Surely there are some out there with integrity.
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 3:07 pm
Do you happen to know whether retired MPs superannuation is indexed in some way to the current MPs salary?
Vote:The current MPs salaries went up when their subsidised foreign travel was wiped recently.
If this meant that the retired MPs super was raised then they should have the subsidised foreign travel wiped as well.
Incidentally I believe that the ridiculous travel perk was created by Norman Kirk when he was PM in 1972-74. He wanted a pay increase for himself and his MPs but couldn’t push for it when his government was clamping down on everyone else in the country so he put this into force. He also created the perk for retired PMs in terms of extra super and the lifelong limo service. It was carefully defined to exclude Jack Marshall. Kirk of course died before he would have qualified so the act was quickly changed so that his widow would get the benefit.
It has got wider and wider since then of course so I think even Mike Moore, who served only 59 days gets it.
March 29th, 2012 at 3:40 pm
slighty off topic, but has anyone heard how Chrissie Carter is doing in the land of the Taleban? I dont imagine he and Peter spend weekends poolside “in-country” as the UN types say…
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Only a bunch of nutcase people in government would invent this.
Vote:Establishing an ongoing, forever, undefined, liability could only be allowed by people spending other peoples money. Creating unfunded liabilities has been a specialty of Councils and Governments. Funny that.
MP’s should leave parliament with no benefits as such. And pay their own cost thereafter. If there is a need for a superannuation scheme it should be funded on a pay as you go basis whilst in office. Kiwisaver or similar. I don’t care if there is a big subsidy on even. But it would be better there is a deduction from their wage – Say 25%. But I do want to be able to see what the costs are in the year they are incurred.
March 29th, 2012 at 4:05 pm
How about declaring a seat vacant if an mp is absent without leave for more than 30 days. I remember the farce of Phillip field being absent from the house call a considerable time.
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 7:22 pm
Sorry to threadjack but Closeup has just unleashed a potential nuke weapon against JK. Seems a list of well connected not only lobbied but threatened a media attack on Sovereign to pay out Bronwyn Pullar,
Looks like Duck and Little have the wood on Crusher. There are more than one leaker by the looks of it.
the worst case scenario is when you have multiple leakers as its very hard to track them and stop them.
IMHO this thing will keep on keeping on. Pullar is a 5 star trolley case and when they appear you run a mile if you have a brain. These trolley cases havea habit of sucking in well maning people.
they will get them to do stuff and when it turns to custard blow the whistle. I reckon Pullars behind at least some of the leaks.
She wants revenge big time and doesnt care who she takes down.
Watch this space
Vote: