Horan’s amendment should be supported

October 23rd, 2013 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

has announced:

MPs pay will be fixed for each term of Parliament, if an amendment proposed by the independent MP Brendan Horan is adopted.

“Back in December I promised that I would put forward an amendment in a bid to get Parliament to agree that salaries would be set by the Remuneration Authority before the next General Election. The salaries would apply for the three year term of each Parliament.

“Now that the Government has given the bill its second reading, I have formally introduced the Supplementary Order Paper

“I have written to all parties in Parliament seeking their support,” said Brendan Horan.

If adopted, the new law would still require the Remuneration Authority to independently set the salaries of MPs. The difference is that the determination would be published about three months before the election.

“That way, every candidate running for Parliament and all voters will know the remuneration of MPs for the next three years. Voters will choose their MPs, and we’ll have an end to the spectacle of Christmas pay rises,” said Brendan Horan.

All parties in Parliament should seriously look at supporting this amendment. They will do themselves a huge favour if they back it, and avoid the annual ritual of self-flagellation of getting payrises that the public hate.

The Horan amendment will not see MPs paid less. It will see one rate fixed for a three year term, based on what is deemed to be the fair level over the three year term.

The public will more willingly accept something that is not a pay rise part-way through a term – but is an increase in remuneration for the next term of Parliament. It means certainty for candidates, MPs and the public.

Some MPs may be reluctant to support this amendment, because it is from Horan. That would be very short-sighted and cutting off their nose to spite their face. Unless MPs enjoy the annual self-flagellation they go through, they should vote for Horan’s SOP.

I covered the case for setting salaries once for each term of Parliament in my submission.

Tags: ,

15 Responses to “Horan’s amendment should be supported”

  1. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    It’s good to see that Horan has taken the time to submit this SOP. And it’s hard to see why any sensible MP wouldn’t support it.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. MarkF (102 comments) says:

    “And it’s hard to see why any *sensible MP* wouldn’t support it.” Oxymoronic surely!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Bovver (173 comments) says:

    Had to laugh at Shane Jone’s comment “Labour MP Shane Jones said the decision was up to the authority, but don’t underestimate how long and hard the hours are that your MPs are toiling away”, does that include watching porn.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. KiwiGreg (3,255 comments) says:

    Well because although they huff and puff and posture they actually LOVE getting payrises.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. JeffW (326 comments) says:

    It is time to introduce pay for performance, and this should be medium term. A large part of MPs’ salaries should be paid 9 years later, and be determined by how the economy has grown in the intervening 9 years. So when Labour and the Melons screw up the economy, their pay packets are hit at least as much as the poor taxpayers who will have to carry the can.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    Graeme Edgeler also supports this:

    People would stand for office, and we would elect them, knowing what they would be paid. This seems a no-brainer for MPs. There is no reason why they need annual increases in salary; nor any reason why they should get their pay increases backdated. The advice of officials was that:

    34. While the intention of submitters seems to be to seek to take some of the ‘heat’ out of the issue, fixing the period in this manner may have the opposite effect if it results in the Remuneration Authority making a higher than usual award in the interests of providing for circumstances that may arise in the following three year period

    I acknowledge that the officials may be right. We won’t really know until it happens (if it does), but given that an election will intervene before anyone gets the increase in salary, my guess is that they’re wrong. People will still whine, no doubt, but given that the higher salaries will be going to people we choose to receive them, I don’t think we will be quite as aggrieved: it’s up to us to choose people we think are worth it, and we’ll know what we’re paying them before we do.

    http://publicaddress.net/8863

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Richard29 (377 comments) says:

    Makes sense – their employment is basically a three year fixed term contract with option to renew.

    If they are to get annual cost of living increases then these should be stipulated in their contract at the start of their term.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. DJP6-25 (1,388 comments) says:

    It’s certainly a god idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. tvb (4,430 comments) says:

    This move is far too sensible for someone as stupid as Horan to think of it on his own.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Manolo (13,828 comments) says:

    The same Brendan Horan, the well-known shagger? :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Azeraph (604 comments) says:

    Horan, smart boy for reviving it. so is jones for dropping a catalyst and good old winston for throwing a humorous spotlight. I was surprised to see Adhern not comment further, luscious thing.

    It’s time someone gave them cheap import fleet cars to run around on.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. slernz (33 comments) says:

    Good idea. This amendment should also be amended to include local government, councillors, mayors and community board members.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    It’s not just salary increases that grate on the public. It’s also the perks of the job. Bill English rorted the system raking in thousands of dollars in housing allowances. MPs surely get paid enough to pay for their accommodation without taxpayers subsidising it.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2910957/Bill-English-buckles-over-housing-allowance

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Nigel Kearney (1,016 comments) says:

    Nobody is forced to take a pay rise. They can just voluntarily donate any increase since the last election to charity, or return it via the IRD. I’m pretty sure the public would accept that and it doesn’t require any law change.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Salary Finder (1 comment) says:

    I don’t think that MPs actually care about public hating their annual pay rises. People’s hate kinda comes with the job. Anyway on the subject of MPs salaries I can say that according to our research the most popular benefit for the Central Government job is Flexible Hours. May be that’s why they want to be MPs )))

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote