Kiwiblog

Now this sounds like a fun junket:

Associate Justice Minister Lianne Dalziel is learning first hand how a country with a reputation for heavy drinking is handling its alcohol problems.

I think this problem may require a lot more study!

Yesterday’s Dom Post labels a young parliamentary group visiting Australia group as “apprentice junketeers” which is quite amusing.Six apprentice junketeers drawn from aspiring political leaders will be in Canberra today to listen to Australian Treasurer Wayne Swan deliver his budget.

The group flew to Australia late last week as part of an annual exchange programme.

According to Parliament’s Speaker, Margaret Wilson, the trip is designed to promote friendship and cooperation between New Zealand and Australia. It would expose the sextet of political up-and-comers to a different political, economic, social and cultural system.

The delegation leader is Labour’s new list MP, Louisa Wall. Travelling with her are Labour public relations practitioner Conor Roberts, National communications adviser Willy Trolove, National researcher Kenny Clark, NZ First researcher Tony de Jong and Green Party researcher Hannah Scott. The party will visit Melbourne, Canberra and Hobart.

Now I actually support exchanges such as these as an excellent investment. Almost all policy, fresh research and ideas come from overseas, and having young people involved in Parliament or politics gain first hand experience is as I say a good investment.

It is, in my mind, a very different case to a Speaker’s Tour when four of the five MPs on it are retiring. I have been critical of that trip because the participants are not going to be around to put the experience and contacts made to good use.

The media have been well justified to be sceptical of that particular trip. But I would hate that to be seen as a licence to dismiss all overseas travel as “junkets”. While some trips are better value than others, certainly a lot of Ministerial travel (for example) is damn exhausting work with almost no spare time at all.

I’ve defended parliamentary overseas trips in the past.  In fact I advocate them quite strongly as desirable because many of the best ideas in relation to national issues, come from other countries and governments. MPs become better legislators and Ministers by having regular international perspectives.

But the trip detailed by Colin Espiner this morning is a bad look, and hard to defend. Having four out of five attendees retiring this year, and the fifth likely not to survive, significantly reduces the benefits of the trip – the MPs will not be around to use the experience and ideas they gain.

It is true that most other MPs may not want to go, as they will be campaigning.  But in that case serious consideration should have been given to cancelling the trip, and instead having an extra one in 2007 or 2009 instead. It really is hard to defend (as Helen Clark is doing) when 80% of them will retire in November. And Clark is wrong to say it is just diplomacy – it has always been about broadening the horizons and experiences of MPs just as much. If it is just diplomacy, the Speaker can attend by herself.

Marian Hobbs doesn’t help the case with this comment:

Hobbs said she was looking forward to the trip.

“I don’t know too much about the purpose. I think it’s about MMP. I’m not sure.”

Like I said, I am normally the last one to “perk bust” MPs – in fact I normally defend them. But again this is hard to defend as value for NZ.

Talking of perk busting, Audrey Young asks where is Rodney Hide when we need him!