Kiwiblog

SUBMISSION OF DAVID FARRAR ON THE
MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (REMUNERATION AND SERVICES) BILL TO THE GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION SELECT COMMITTEE

 About the Submitter

1. This submission is made by David Farrar in a personal capacity. I would like to appear before the Committee to speak to my submission.

Overall Bill

2. I submit in support of the bill proceeding. I think its provisions represent a welcome and overdue reform, especially in regard to having the Remuneration Authority take responsibility for most allowances and services, as well as salaries.

Timing of Salary Determinations

3. I propose that the bill be amended to legislate that the Remuneration Authority only review MPs salaries every third year, and publish their determination around three to six months before the scheduled election. The new determination should take effect for the term of the next Parliament.
4. I submit this, not because I think MPs are overpaid and should be paid less. Quite the opposite. I think it is important that MPs continue to receive appropriate remuneration. However the current system of annual increases creates a regular self-flagellation exercise as media and members of the public lash “greedy” MPs voting themselves a payrise (even though that is an inaccurate description of the process), and pressure is put on MPs to turn down the payrise, and/or donate it to charity.
5. The public will never like MPs getting payrises during their term of office. However they will accept that the salary for one term of Parliament will be higher than the previous three year term. In the days of high inflation, there may have been a case for annual payrises, but in today’s environment a three yearly adjustment should still not be too large an increase.
6. They key thing is that no MP gains a payrise during their term office. The salary level for an MP is set prior to the election at which they are elected, and stays for that term. So the public know when electing MPs what the remuneration for the job will be – and candidates will know what the salary is they are elected.
7. I would expect that the Remuneration Authority, if making a determination for a three year term, would take into account the fact it is for three years.
8. I think this proposal is a win-win. It gives greater certainty to MPs, removes the annual flagellation around payrises, and still ensures that MPs salaries are set at the appropriate level over time.
9. The formal amendment would be the addition of a Clause 9(5) which says “The Remuneration Authority will make a determination under Subsection (1) no later than 30 September in the year of a scheduled election, and the determination will remain in force for the duration of the next Parliament as detailed in Section 11.
10. It could be prudent to have a clause detailing what should occur if there is a snap or early election. In this case, one could either have no new determination, or authorize the Remuneration Authority to make a determination prior to polling day.

Deductions for Absent MPs

11. I support the increase in the deduction for an MP absent without leave from the House.
12. The deduction is based on sitting days missed. It is worth noting that if the House is in urgency or an extended sitting, then multiple days may be counted as the one sitting day. This means an MP (for example) could attend on a Thursday yet skip a Friday and Saturday extended sitting, yet face no penalty. It may be wise to define a sitting day as any physical day the House of Representatives is sitting, rather than implicitly the definition used by Standing Orders.
13. I think the deduction could be increased from 0.2% per day missed as with only 96 scheduled sitting days, that means (after deducing the nine days which gain no deduction) that an MP who attended not a single sitting day would only be deducted 17.4% of their annual salary (if an ordinary MP).
14. I also think the nine “penalty free” days is too high, as this is only for MPs without leave, which is simple to obtain. I would submit a better threshold is three sitting days (one week) before deductions begin, and then deductions of 0.5% per sitting day. This means an MP who did not turn up to a single sitting day in 2012 would have 46.5% of their salary deducted, instead of 17.4%.

Frequency of Determinations for Services

15. Clause 29 states that determinations for travel and accommodation services under section 18 should be made once per term, in the first two years.
16. As with MPs salaries, I think it is more logical to have this determination made towards the end of the parliamentary term and apply for the following term. Again this removes the perceptions of MPs gaining some extra “advantage” during a term.
17. I propose Clause 29 be amended so that determinations are made in the final year of a term of Parliament, and that they apply for the next term of Parliament.
18. I support retaining 29(4) to allow for emergency amendments if necessary.

Official Information Act status

19. This bill entrenches the welcome increase in transparency introduced by the current Prime Minister and Speaker over spending by Parliament.
20. Some people have submitted in favour of going further, and bringing The Parliamentary Service under the Official Information Act.
21. I can understand the reluctance of some MPs for this to occur, as it could mean that attempts are made to access (for example) internal communications between MPs and staff discussing political strategy and the like. You could end up with each party OIA’ing the communications and documents of all the other parties in Parliament. Draft policy documents could be OIA’d, for example.
22. A pragmatic solution may be to agree to have the Official Information Act apply to The Parliamentary Service, but only for the purpose of financial documents. This would provide full scrutiny of parliamentary expenditure but protect political discussions and strategy.

Thank you for considering this submission. I would like to make an oral submission in support, and look forward to appearing.

Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn blogs:

Why are we paying for Murray McCully to stay in hotels in Auckland?

According to his latest Ministerial credit card receipts [PDF, p. 12], we paid for McCully to spend two nights at the Heritage Hotel in Auckland. The expense is justified as “accommodation during RWC”. This would be entirely uncontentious, except for one thing: McCully represents an Auckland electorate, and I am informed he is on the electoral roll there. Which means he has a home of his own to go to in Auckland. So again, why the hotel? …

Ministers are given credit cards to cover actual, reasonable and necessary expenses – not because they feel like spending a night of luxury on the taxpayer, or just can’t be arsed driving home.

I’m sorry but this is ridicolous. First of all staying for two nights in the Heritage hotel is not a night of luxury. I’ve stayed there as TVNZ put you up there if you are up for one of their shows. It is a very standard hotel. Nothing wrong with it, but not a luxury hotel.

As for why McCully was staying there for two nights, during the Rugby World Cup. Well he was the Minister in charge of a event which is broadcast to a billion people, and has overall revenues of hundreds of millions. At an event like that you could well have meetings starting very early and finishing late, plus a hotel room allows you to hold meetings in it.

I speak from experience. I was the Chair of the organising committee for the ICANN meeting in Wellington some years ago. This is a fraction of the size of the RCW, but was a fairly major event to host, as you had 500 – 700 Internet policy makers here. Despite living in Wellington, I stayed at the official host hotel of the Duxton (and if anyone calls that a luxury hotel, they have not been there often) as it was decided that the extra cost was fairly minimal in the context of the importance of smooth management, which was having all the key decision makers staying together so that as issues arose, decisions could be made quickly.

In the context of an almost billion dollar events like the RWC, a decision by the Minister to spend two nights in the Auckland CBD rather than what can be an hour away in East Coast Bays, is unremarkable and trivial – and frankly criticism of it is ludicrous, especially painting it a night of luxury.

I think those that glamorise hotels have never stayed in one themselves. In the main they are just places they supply a bed you can sleep in and a bathroom you can shower and freshen up in. Sure there are some luxury hotels with stunning views and the like, but 95% of staying in hotels is just about a well located bed.

When I go up to Auckland, I much prefer crashing at a friend’s place than staying in sterile hotels. However sometimes I will reluctantly go into a hotel, because the location in the CBD allows you to do business more efficiently.

Why did McCully stay in a hotel for two nights in Auckland? The exact same reason – it allowed him to do his job as RWC Minister more efficiently.

UPDATE: Looking closer at the actual DIA documents, the title page is headed up “Credit Card Statements and Reconciliations – Staff of the Office of Hon Murray McCully”. This means it is not McCully’s credit card, but his staff’s ones. And when they are paying for something on behalf of the Minister, they always note that. So when there is no such notation, then the expense is presumably for them, not the Minister.

Having made inquiries, it turns out that in fact the two nights at the Heritage was for a Wellington based staff member who was in Auckland for RWC duties. So I look forward to NRT doing a retraction.

NZ 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.

The quarterly disclosures are out for MPs and Ministers.

Top Ministers in terms of internal costs were:

1. PM $121,884
2. Judith Collins $74,138
3. Pita Sharples $72,473
4. Steven Joyce $62,223
5. Tariana Turia $57,260

Worth remembering that expenses are to some degree a reflection of activity and location. Also affected by whether their ministerial home is owned or rented.

Total ministerial expenses for Q4 2011 were $1.16m plus $0.32m overseas travel for $1.48m. The year before in Q4 2010 it was $1.13m plus $0.86m overseas travel for $1.99m total. Obviously with the election, less travel.

Top MPs were:

1. Hone Harawira $54,961
2. Phil Goff $32,566
3. Rahui Katene $29,436
4. Kevin Hague $28,763
5. David Cunliffe $28,040

The total MPs expenses for the quarter were $3.15m. For Q4 2010, it was $1.80m. I guess the election saw a lot of taxpayer funded travel.

Stuff reports:

Decisions over MPs’ and ministers’ entitlements will be handed over to the independent Remuneration Authority, the Government has announced.

Prime Minister John Key said he had introduced legislation repealing the Civil List Act 1979 and bringing together more of the powers to decide MPs and ministers’ travel, accommodation and communications entitlements under one Act.

Under the new Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) bill:

* Most travel and accommodation entitlements for MPs and ministers would be set by the authority rather than Parliament’s Speaker or the minister responsible for Ministerial Services.

*MPs would be required by law to disclose their travel and accommodation expenses – they do so voluntarily at the moment.

* MPs will be docked 0.2 per cent of their salary – currently $270 a day – for non-attendance.

Over the last three years there has been a huge increase in transparency and accountability over MPs expenses. This continues that trend.

I still advocate that a further logical step is to change the timing of MPs salary years from annually in arrears to setting them once every three years just before the election. Then that pay rate applies for the term of Parliament, and MPs don’t have t put up with all the crap when the Remuneration Authority gives them a backdated payrise.

Stuff reports:

Decisions over MPs’ and ministers’ entitlements will be handed over to the independent Remuneration Authority, the Government has announced. …

* Most travel and accommodation entitlements for MPs and ministers would be set by the authority rather than Parliament’s Speaker or the minister responsible for Ministerial Services.

*MPs would be required by law to disclose their travel and accommodation expenses – they do so voluntarily at the moment.

* MPs will be docked 0.2 per cent of their salary – currently $270 a day – for non-attendance.

We’ve seen a massive change in transparency and accountability over MPs expenses in the last three years. This is another step in the right direction.

I still think that it would be very sensible to change the salary reviews from annually to tri-annually, so that the salary for an MP and Minister is set just before an election and remains in place for the three year term.

Andrea Vance reports at Stuff:

The husband of disgraced former minister Pansy Wong wrongly claimed more than $2000 of taxpayers’ money for private business trips, a watchdog has ruled.

A report ordered by Speaker Lockwood Smith last year found the couple had abused the MP’s travel perk on one occasion, in December 2008, and forced them to pay back almost $500. Wong resigned as Botany MP in December.

But, Auditor General Lyn Provost said another trip – in  June 2008  to China’s Lianyungang province – was for “private business purposes” and Sammy Wong should not have asked for a rebate.

However, Provost said her investigations found there was ”no pattern of wrong doing” by the couple “or of extensive business activity linked with overseas travel”.

Wong said she welcomed the report because it found they had not “intentionally abused the system”.

She denied her husband meant to mislead the first inquiry.

In a statement she said: “At the November 2010 inquiry, Sammy Wong contacted the company in Lianyungang, China, to ascertain the dates that he visited there. He received a list detailing trips he had made and the June 2008 trip was not on it.  None of the trips listed involved any parliamentary travel rebates. He accepted the external confirmation in good faith and had no intention to mislead any inquiry.”

Wong added: “I hope the findings of the Office of the Auditor General and my actions taken demonstrate that accountability was accepted and any mistake made was unintentional.”

While in no way condoning the claiming for two trips which were ineligible, I would note Pansy has paid a very high price for just $2,000 of wrong claims. Many other MPs were found to have inappropriately charged more than that to credit cards etc, and they got away with just paying it back.

One of the better things John Key has done is to introduce transparency to ministerial spending. Previously you never knew how much each Minister spent, or what it was on. And even more than that, their detailed credit card expenses are now put online.

This allows us to track spending. Now while Labour never released their spending, DIA did provide this for comparision purposes for the first six months of 2008, so we can compare that to the last six months of this Government:

• Out of Wellington accom down 40% from $78k to $46k
• Domestic Air Travel down 17% from $559k to $466k
• Domestic Surface Travel down 10% from $1,589k to $1,428k
• International Travel up 1% from $1,199k to $1,211k

Wellington accom expenses not included as impossible to compare apples with apples, as houses owned by Min Servs are not shown as an expense.

The NZ Herald reports:

Independent MP Hone Harawira spent $43,000 on travel in three months – nearly as much as the entire Maori Party’s bill of $44,410.

I guess he’s had lots of huis to attend.

Claire Trevett at NZ Herald reports:

Parliament’s Speaker has moved to officially abolish politicians’ international travel perks, and will vet any travel applications by MPs to ensure they do not abuse the new system.

His new set of “directions” – the rules governing MPs’ spending and entitlements – has abolished use of the perk for private travel, from January 1. And it can no longer be used for spouses in any circumstances.

That is good, and well overdue.

MPs can still claim a rebate if their trip is primarily for parliamentary purposes – a broad-ranging definition which includes “research” and international conferences.

This is well intentioned, but is open to exploitation. If an MP wishes to go over to the UK and attend the Labour or Conservative Party conference, then they will be able to. Catch up with a couple of mates who happen to be MPs there and you have your research component.

But the vetting will ensure no one can set up a work-related meeting on holiday as justification for a rebate.

The Speaker is in charge of vetting those trips, for which MPs must pay part of the costs themselves.

This is better than no vetting, but an inferior solution to what I prefer – that the costs of any international travel be funded out of a parliamentary party’s bulk fund. This would provide a real incentive for MPs to only travel when there is real value in doing so – because there are other things you can spend the bulk fund on – more staff, external research, advertising etc.

The international travel subsidy will continue to be ring-fenced. This provides an incentive for MPs to try and maximise its use.

The Herald reports:

Independent MP Chris Carter was going to use his international travel perk for an overseas holiday but cancelled it after media found out, it was reported tonight.

Mr Carter booked flights for himself and his partner Peter Kaiser, business class to Colombo, Sri Lanka, just before Speaker Lockwood Smith last month stopped MPs from using the taxpayer subsidy for holidays, TV3 News reported.

It would have cost an estimated $13,900 – with 90 per cent paid for from the public purse.

Would have been somewhat fitting if the last use of the MP perk had been by Chris Carter.

Mr Carter is quitting politics at next year’s election, and as a former MP he will be able to use the international travel rebate for the rest of his life, without media scrutiny.

It may give him the incentive to quite before the election, so he can start using it earlier.

And Kate Chapman at Stuff also reports:

Mr Carter was not keen to discuss details of the trip when contacted last night. “We have cancelled it. We’ve lost the deposit. We’ve cancelled. We’re not going. Ok, fair enough? You guys have had yet another victory. So thanks, that’s the end of the discussion.”

Poor Chris. This transparency thing is a real burden.

Mr Carter has accused Dr Smith’s office of leaking the details of his trip.

“The leak had the date I was leaving, the hotel I was staying [at] in Singapore, the flight numbers – the only people that know that are Parliamentary Travel and the Speaker’s office, I’m quite sure that Parliamentary Travel wouldn’t have leaked it, so that only leaves one suspect,” he said. The leak was ” incredibly pathetic, vindictive and spiteful”.

Dr Smith has denied leaking the documents and said he did not even know about Mr Carter’s planned trip.

“I didn’t want to comment because I didn’t want to lend dignity to his accusation, but I didn’t even know he was going anywhere, so there was no way I could possibly have leaked anything.”

I have no idea who leaked it, but I agree unlikely to be parliamentary travel. The parliamentary travel office probably have awarded Chris the title of “Most Valued Customer” for his outstanding contributions to their sales targets.

Phil Goff has managed to not actually break the rule on accomodation funding, yet still manage to get himself seen as hypocritical, having broken his word, demonstrating a sense of entitlement, and inappropriately using taxpayer funded staff to do commercial business for him.

The issues are quite complicated, so let us start from the beginning.

At some stage in the 1990s Phil Goff purchased an apartment in Wellington, and lived in it. Parliamentary Service would have paid him an accomodation allowance up to the level of the interest on his mortgage.

Then he became a Minister and got provided with a ministerial house. So he moved into the Ministerial House (which by chance was two minutes from where I live) and rented out his apartment. Nothing too out of the ordinary here.

Then Labour lost the election, and Goff lost his ministerial house. At this stage he had a choice. He could move back into his apartment, or he could rent out a new apartment at taxpayer expense and continue to rent out his apartment.

By this stage it is almost inevitable that the mortgage has been paid off. So if Goff moved back into his own apartment, he would not get a taxpayer funded accomodation allowance.

Goff has claimed he could not move back into his apartment as it had tenants. This is a red herring. S51(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that only 42 days notice is needed to terminate a tenancy if the owner wishes to live there. With the election loss in early November, the apartment could have been free by the end of December.

But Goff chose the route which is of maximum benefit to himself. Now he is far far alone in doing so. In 2008 such arrangements were still secret as john Key and Lockwood Smith had not opened the arrangements up to public scrutiny. So I don’t judge harshly MP’s decisions in the pre-transparency era.

But then we had the transparency and Labour ripped into Bill English for his accomodation allowance use. Note that Bill English was actually found by three Speakers and the Auditor-General to be entitled to a Wellington accomodation allowance.

At that time Phil Goff was asked about his situation where he claims an accomodation allowance, and gains rental income from his property in Wellington. Goff could have defended his right to do so, but instead he pledged “The flat is currently tenanted and I plan to sell it”, as reported by TV3.

That was a very clear indication that he planned to sell it, no later than when the tenants moved out. He could incidentially have sold it at any time the tenants were there – in fact it is probably easier to sell with tenants in it. He had 18 montsh to live up to his word and sell it, and quite simply has just not bothered to do so.

You might expect such a mistake from a junior MP, but from the Leader of the Opposition it is worse. If you make a public commitment, and in a time of such scrutiny on these things, you should follow through on it.

But worse the current tenants moved out, and Goff doesn’t sell the place as promised. He advertises for new tenants. And worse he gets a member of his taxpayer funded staff to be listed as the contact person, and on four occassions show people around the apartment – during work hours.

This is a breach of the rules. That is using taxpayer resources to help Phil Goff make private money. It is in fact the exact thing they hounded Pansy Wong for.

It staggers me that the Leader of the Opposition would agree to having one of his staff be listed as the contact person for his private investment property. That is massively bad judgement. Of course Goff may not have time to do it himself – but there are specialist property managers such as Quinovic who will do it for a fee. Basically Goff chose to use a free taxpayer funded staffer, rather than pay for a professional.

Then to compound his already multiple misjudgements, he defends his renting it out as “it’s my superannuation”.

Can you think of a phrase more likely to piss off the voters? Because Phil Goff is one of those rare MP on the old gold plated parliamenary super scheme. After 30 years in Parliament he will leave with a massive superannuation payout – well into seven figures.

Then Goff blunders again on TV3. He defends his staffer working on renting out his apartment as doing it as a friend, not as a staffer and not in paid time. But this is clearly untrue – at least two of the interviews were done during the day.

I’ve worked for a political party leader, and yes they can be yogur friend as well as a boss. I’ve gone around to their place to fix their home PC (which you could argue anyway is needed for work). But when doing this, always on a Saturday.

Having a staffer find tenants for your investment property is an appalling error of judgement for the man who wants to be Prime Minister.

And in the media today, Goff carries on saying that he was entitled to do what he did, as it was within the rules. Has he learnt nothing from the last 18 months – that the public hate hearing those words “within the rules”. If he was smart, he would apologise for not keeping his word and most of all for using taxpayer funded staff to find tenants for his residential investment property.

The Law Commission has published its review of the Civil List Act 1979, which sets out MPs salaries and expenses. They recommend:

• Travel, accommodation, attendance and communications services for members of Parliament and members of the Executive should be determined by an independent body – an enhanced Remuneration Authority which includes a former MP and a person with appropriate skills and
  experience in the administration of Parliament
• The RA should also determine entitlements to funding and services to support parties’ and members’ parliamentary operations
• The Official Information Act 1982 should be extended to cover information held
  by the Speaker in his role with ministerial responsibilities for Parliamentary
  Service and the Office of the Clerk; the Parliamentary Service; the Parliamentary
  Service Commission; and the Office of the Clerk in its departmental holdings
• The OIA should not apply to information held by members in their capacity as members of Parliament, information relating to the development of parliamentary party policies,  and party organisational material, including media advice and polling information.
• Unauthorised absences of greater than nine days should result in 0.2% of annual salary being deducted a day. That is around $250 a day, up from $10.

Overall this looks very good. I’ve long supported the OIA applying to the financial aspects of Parliamentary Service, but have not supported full inclusion, where someone like me (for example) could send in an OIA asking for all e-mails between Phil Goff and his press secretaries. No parliamentary party could operate with its internal e-mails being made available to the media and other parties.

So I think the Law Commission have done a good job on the OIA side, as their proposals hopefully stand a good chance of being adopted.

The handing over of perks, expenses and parliamentary party funding to an independent body is also an idea whose time has come. Having a former MP and someone with parliamentary administration experience on the Remuneration Authority should mean that its decisions will be made on practical experience, not textbook theory.

I hope the Government, and indeed all parties, support the report. There may be some fine-tuning to be done, but the principles look good to me.

UPDATE: Yay the PM has just announced that the Government has accepted in principle the recommendation to have MPs and Ministers expenses set by an independent body. By the end of this term of Parliament, things will be hugely more transparent and accountable compared to 2008 and before.

Jonathan Marshall reports in the SST:

EMBATTLED MP Pansy Wong has been “interrogated” by officials over allegations of travel perk misuse.

The National MP and former minister is under investigation by Parliamentary Services after admitting travelling to China with her husband using a travel perk that entitled her to a 90% discount. Rules state the perk can only be used for private travel but her husband, Sammy, conducted business while there.

All of Wong’s travel, including 10 trips taken while a minister in the current administration, are under review.

Last week Wong was hauled into an “interrogation” by investigators, a source close to the inquiry said.

“Pansy was spoken to and it is expected the results will be ready within a few days,” the source said.

Good. Decisions should be made on the basis of a thorough investigation and the facts as they are revealed.

There are generally seven outcomes from MP “misbehaviour”. In rough order they are:

1. No action taken at all
2. Money is repaid, but no other action – various Ministers and former Ministers who had minor inappropriate spending
3. A formal reprimand or warning – Phil Heatley
4. A demotion but no loss of pay – Chris Carter, demoted from front bench to second bench over his perks
5. Sacking/forced resignation from a role which results in loss of pay – sacked from Cabinet, or as Deputy Speaker etc
6. Suspended or expelled from Caucus
7. Criminal charges laid

No 5 has already happened. What we don’t know is whether the facts support No 6 or No 7 occuring. No 7 will not be a decision for the Government, it will ultimately be a matter for the Police of the SFO.

No 6 will be a matter for the party caucus. It is generally used over issues of party loyalty – Chris Carter for example was not suspended over his use of perks – he was suspended for his letter to the press gallery. Even Taito Philip Field was not suspended for his corrupt behaviour – he was suspended/expelled for saying he might stand against Labour.

It is possible No 6 could happen if Caucus felt that the report is so damning that Pansy should resign immediately from Parliament. However the view might be that having a by-election in election year is a waste of money, if (for example) Pansy indicates she will be retiring at the election anyway.

It is good the report is likely to be complete soon, as that will then allow judgement and decisions to be made.

As expected:

The Speaker has finally sounded the death knell on travel perks after almost 40 years of MPs enjoying taxpayer-subsidised flights for their private international trips and holidays.

Lockwood Smith announced last night that the perks giving MPs discounted international travel would no longer be available for them. …

However, he intended to set up a scheme to allow backbench and Opposition MPs to travel on parliamentary-related trips of their own initiative, rather than the limited opportunities for official travel.

He said the new scheme would have tight rules and was likely to require some personal contribution from MPs towards costs.

I still think the appropriate way to do this, is to increase the bulk funding each parliamentary party gets. Nothing will ensure only high quality trips are funded, like the fact they would be competing for funds with staff, research, policy and comms.

Any sort of dedicated fund or entitlement will end up with controversy.

The Remuneration Authority will decide if MPs will get an increase on their base salary to compensate.

They will – it is basically required by law. The real question is how much.

Stuff reports:

Former Cabinet minister Pansy Wong will be entitled to a 90 per cent international travel rebate for the rest of her life if she quits Parliament.

This isn’t quite right. The entitlements were frozen. I actually got it wrong on Twitter yesterday as I assumed they were frozen at the end of 1999, when the perk was abolished  for new MPs, but in fact it is 2008. Here is the Speakers Direction:

6.14 A person who was a member before the 1999 general election has his or her travel entitlements frozen at the level for which he or she qualified at the end of the 2005–2008 term of Parliament.

At the end of the 2008 term of Parliament, Pansy has completed four terms. And 6.15(1)(g) defines what you get:

• Less than 2 terms – 0 %
• 2 full terms and was in the Executive – 50%
• 2 full terms and not in Executive – 0%
• 3 full terms – 60%
• 4 full terms – 75%
• 5 full terms – 90%

What does this mean, then for those who are still MPs and who entered at each election. When they retire it will be:

1. 2008 – 0%
2. 2005 – 0%
3. 2002 – 0%
4. 1999 – 0%
5. 1996 – 75%
6. 1993 or before – 90%

Now who can be first to say how many MPs will get 75% when they retire, and how many will get 90%, and how many 0%?

Claire Trevett reports in the Herald:

Speaker Lockwood Smith will decide tonight whether to abolish MPs’ travel perks – but a wholesale scrapping is increasingly unlikely as some MPs argue to keep a limited discount for work trips. …

While there is broad consensus over scrapping the perks for holidays, Labour MPs at least are expected to argue in favour of retaining some funding for MPs to go on trips related to their parliamentary work, such as meeting MPs overseas or attending conferences. …

Labour leader Phil Goff has made it clear he sees the use of the rebates for holidays as unjustifiable but legitimate work-related trips were important. Opposition MPs and backbenchers are limited to official parliamentary delegations and there are few opportunities to take trips of their own initiative.

I support MPs being funded for international work related travel, but if you continue with it as an “entitlement” it will get abused, beyond doubt. If there is an entitlement  for say one “work” trip every three years, then I am sure many MPs will manage to put together a trip which will qualify for funding.

The reality is that even some “work” trips have little parliamentary aspects to them, and are mainly party political or recreational. Quite easy to visit three or four European countries to catch up with your political mates, spend a few days being wined and dined at a party conference in the UK and for good measure see the All Blacks play as you just happen to be there at the same time.

That’s at one end of the scale. At the other end you might have say the Shadow Education Spokesperson travelling to a couple of countries to meet with Education Ministers, their officials and perhaps tour around some schools being run under a new model. That is entirely legitimate and should be encouraged (again many of the best policy ideas come from overseas).

Parliamentary Service should not be placed in a position where they have to judge whether a trip has enough “work” in it to qualify for a subsidised airfare.

The answer, as I have said before, is to fund international travel out of the leader’s budget. A party leader is far better positioned to decide whether a trip is worthwhile, and they will have an incentive not to say yes to the more dubious proposals, because the more they approve for travel, the less they have for other purposes (staff, policy, research, propaganda etc).

So it is vital that any money for travel not be ring-fenced. The moment you do that, you encourage people to come up with ways to use it all. It must be part of the “bulk” fund that goes to each parliamentary party.

Now there is an argument that the current allocation of $57,000 per (non-Executive) MP isn’t designed to cover international travel, other than for the Leader. This is a fair enough point, and a consequence of abolishing the travel perk could well be to increase the level of funding to the parliamentary party to allow legitimate overseas travel to be funded.

How much should any increase be? Well my rough calculation would be that on average you would expect an MP to do a trip say every three years. The senior ones will do more, and the junior ones less. The average cost of a business class fare is $9,000 so maybe you look at increasing funding from $57,000 to $60,000 per MP per annum. You could argue one trip every five years, so that would be $1,800 extra per annum.

The one thing that should not be done is to retain a travel subsidy as an “entitlement”. That will just lead to rorting of the system. National has signalled it wants the entitlement abolished. Labour’s position is less clear. I hope they will clearly signal tat they do support abolishing any international travel entitlement, rather than just modifying the criteria for it.

No other business has an “entitlement” for international travel. If there is a good case to travel overseas, you make a proposal to your boss, and they agree to fund it out of their budget – or not. That is how Parliament should work also.

The Herald reports:

An increase to MPs’ salaries is almost inevitable if the Prime Minister’s bid to get rid of their foreign-travel perks is successful.

It is. As people now all know (and something I was the first to highlight over a year ago as it was obscurely buried in the Remuneration Authority’s 2003 determination, and had not been explicitly listed since) the value of the perk (as calculated by IRD) is deducted from their salary effectively.

If the Speaker just abolished it unilaterally, then MPs would have their base salary increase by $9,500 by the Remuneration Authority.

Although the demise of the perk seems certain, the taxpayer is likely to have to make up for it by an increase in MPs’ salaries.

Mr Key said he expected any rise to be “very modest” and putting salaries up by the full $9800 value of the perk was “unacceptable to me”. A significant increase would only expose MPs to more criticism, even though they had no say in their pay, he said.

Mr Key has urged the Speaker to ask the Remuneration Authority to decide how to abolish the perk and whether changes should be made to salaries as a result.

This is where the PM has been quite cunning. He is basically asking the Remuneration Authority to say in advance how much they would increase salaries, if the perk is abolished – with a rather unsubtle note that an increase to the full value is “unacceptable”.

So the Remuneration Authority now has to decide what to do, which is challenging as the most logical would just be to stop deducting the $9,800 from the base salary.

Annual totals for international travel perks for existing MPs:

1992-93 – $263,567
1995-96 – $387,950
2008-09 – $600,000
2009-10 – $432,989

Here’s what I would do. Divide $433,000 by 120 MPs and that is $3,500 per MP. Add that to the base salary and you can claim the exercise is revenue neutral. It’s not the principled way to do it (that would be the $9,800 option) but it is a pragmatic solution.

Labour leader Phil Goff agreed with Mr Key’s request for the perk to be reviewed independently, but said it was essential to retain some entitlement to international travel to allow MPs to go overseas on parliamentary business.

He had used his rebate for his recent trip to Australia to meet Prime Minister Julia Gillard and senior Cabinet ministers. “That enables me to do my job properly and is a legitimate use. Trying to justify the use of it for holidays will never be regarded by the public as a legitimate use.” …

Act leader Rodney Hide said he agreed with the Prime Minister that the perk should go and although it was for the Remuneration Authority to decide on salary increases in lieu of the perk, “you’d hope they’d be a wee bit judicious”.

He disputed Mr Goff’s call for some provision for work travel, saying there was already enough discretionary funding for it in party leaders’ budgets – a bulk sum they get to run their offices.

I’m actually more in agreement with Phil Goff on this point. I do think MPs should be able to travel internationally when it is work related. Many of the best policy ideas come from initiatives in other countries etc.

Now Rodney is right that such travel can be funded from the leader’s office budget. And that is where it should be funded from – rather than a separate dedicated fund. If you have a fund for travel – then people will make sure it gets fully used. If it comes from the bulk fund, then the leader (or their COS) has to decide whether the value of that travel is greater than the value they would get from spending it on more staff, or policy research, or a pamphlet etc etc.

But what I think Goff wants, and I agree with him, is a review of the level of funding for the Leader’s Office to ensure it is adequate to be able to fund legitimate work related international travel by MPs, now they can not use the perk to fund it.

Stuff has just tweeted:

BREAKING: Prime Minister tells speaker to abolish MPs perks.

Excellent. Amazing how quickly things can change in a couple of years, once you have transparency. No details yet.

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

MPs across the political spectrum are calling for their private travel perks to be scrapped after the resignation of Cabinet minister Pansy Wong.

Prime Minister John Key said yesterday there was “a time and a place” for looking at the travel perks.

Speaking from Japan, where he was attending the Apec summit, he said: “It’s possible there may need to be some change but today’s not the day to make those comments.

“It’s tripped up a number of MPs and that’s very unfortunate. It looks somewhat like a relic of the past but in the end that’s not solely my decision. That’s something we need to discuss [and] in due course we will.”

Raising MPs’ salary in place of the perks was contentious.

“It’s not so much getting rid of it, the question is would there be any salary adjustment.”

That sounds like a move towards scrapping it.

The issue though, is that it will mean an increase in the salaries for MPs, as the Remuneration Authority currently deducts it from the level at which it judges their remuneration should be, to set base salary.

This increase would basically be automatic – it would not be requested by MPs. You would probably have to change the law, to stop there being an increase if the travel perk is removed.

But that is what should happen. The international travel perk should go, as I have blogged previously. And MPs should get paid what the RA determines is appropriate.

The Dom Post reports:

A National minister used her taxpayer-funded travel perk for a trip to China with her husband where he did a business deal that later turned sour.

Ethnic Affairs Minister Pansy Wong has been under fire since it was revealed she signed herself “Minister of NZ Govt”, and her address as “Parliament Buildings, Wellington NZ”, when she witnessed a contract between Pacific Hovercraft NZ and China-based Lianyungang Supreme Hovercraft during her trip to China in January last year.

A spokesman for Prime Minister John Key confirmed last night that his office was looking into the use of Mrs Wong’s travel subsidy.

Parliament’s rules expressly forbid MPs from using their private travel perk to pursue their own or their spouse’s private business interests.

But Mrs Wong’s office insisted last night that the purpose of the trip to China was a holiday. …

There was no issue with either of them using the perk as they were on holiday, she said. While business documents were signed during the trip, “that wasn’t the aim of their holiday”.

I think the Minister may be on shaky ground here. The aim of a trip is subjective. Whether or not business was done on a trip is objective, and it seems clear there was.

Now one can argue about whether or not one business deal as part of a trip that is mainly holiday, turns it into a business trip. What if the business only took up 5% of the holiday? Or 10%?

But in reality I think that doing any business on a trip (unless utterly trivial such as signing some documents faxed to your hotel) will render the trip ineligible for use of the travel perk.

I don’t know the precise details on this issue, but my gut reaction is that the cost of the travel should be repaid if business was done on the trip. The intent is not what counts – it is what happened on the trip.

UPDATE: The above was written at 9 am and set to appear at 1 pm. The media are now reporting she has been stood down.

The Dom Post has an editorial and a story on MPs perks today, and both rather over-state their case in my opinion.

The editorial is on transparency over the MPs travel perks. Now my position is actually the same as the Dom Post’s – that the perk should be abolished. But the editorial goes too far when it says:

Dr Smith argues that the subsidy, which cost $432,989 last year, is actually paid for by MPs collectively forgoing part of their salary entitlement.

It is an argument that bears a passing acquaintance with the facts. The Remuneration Authority takes account of the cost of the subsidy when setting MPs’ pay.

That is not a passing acquaintance with the facts. It is 100% correct, even if the Dom Post does not like it.

The travel subsidy, like many other MPs’ perks, was initially introduced in lieu of a pay rise. However, when responsibility for setting MPs’ pay was transferred from Parliament to the Remuneration Authority’s predecessor, the Higher Salaries Commission, it ignored many of the entitlements MPs had voted themselves.

It did – up until 2003. In 2003 the Remuneration Authority moved to a total remuneration calculation where it calculates what should be the total remuneration for an MP, and deducts off the super subsidy and the travel perks.

Hence MPs receive what an independent body thinks their jobs are worth plus the value of the extras they have voted themselves over the years

No this is absolutely wrong. The independent body works out what their jobs are worth and deducts the value of the extras off the remuneration to calculate a base salary.

extras that inflate the base salary of today’s MPs from $131,000 to more than $180,000.

Not quite. The Herald calculates it as:

• Salary $131,000
• Super Subsidy $26,200
• Domestic Travel $1,176
• Partner Travel $3,449
• International Travel $9,646

That is around $170,000 as the value of an MPs remuneration package.

That gives even the meanest MP an income higher than 99 per cent of his fellow citizens. Whether it is too much is a matter of judgment, but it is not a matter of judgment that should be exercised by those who stand to benefit from it.

Eight years ago Parliament was advised to set up an independent body to determine MPs’ pay and entitlements, but when the legislation reached Parliament’s standing orders committee – a body every bit as powerful and self-interested as any trade union – it was gutted.

The ongoing furore over MPs’ travel expenses is the price MPs pay for refusing to surrender control of their pay and perks. It is a price successive Speakers have been happy to pay, but it is not one the public should tolerate.

MPs’ pay and perks should be set by an independent body that takes account of comparable pay rates here and overseas, the state of the economy and workloads.

I agree they should all be set by the Remuneration Authority, but I don’t think it would reduce the “furore” over pay and perks.

Now in this article we read:

Members of Parliament are secretly planning to change the rules around their $24,000-a-year accommodation allowance to make it easier for those who make Wellington their home to still be counted as out-of-towners.

Under the new rules, MPs will be able to nominate a “home base” where they normally live when not doing parliamentary business in Wellington. If that is outside Wellington, they will qualify for the accommodation allowance.

I have not got a copy of the new rules, but from what I can glean the change is around wording, not substance. The old rules referred to primary residence and the new rules refer to a “home base”. The Auditor-general herself said the term “primary residence” was not a useful one as the test has never been where an MP spends most of their time. If that was the test, then no Minister would ever be found to live outside Wellington.

One has to approach this from a principled approach, in relation to the fact the job of an MP requires them to live in Wellington some of the time, and when in Wellington they need to be have a place to live. The principle is that an MP should not be out of pocket for what is a work related expense, but neither should they gain from it.

If an MP, before they became an MP, resided outside of Wellington then their Wellington accommodation expenses get met (up to a limit) by the taxpayer. The exception to this is if the MP abandons their out of Wellington residence – either by selling it or renting it out. If they do that, then they are gaining at taxpayer expense.

The Auditor-General ruled (as did Speakers Hunt and Wilson) that Bill English was entitled to a Wellington accommodation allowance because he still maintained his Dipton property. If he had sold it or was leasing it out, then they would have found differently.

The one change I would make is I would bar MPs from having a direct or indirect interest in the Wellington accommodation they claim the allowance for. The Greens had their super scheme own several as a way to maximise income for themselves – and in fact were even claiming twice for the same property. Other MPs have owned the places they rented.

So the change in the rules is fine – the only potential for abuse is:

But one MP agreed yesterday that under the new definition it might be possible for an MP to maintain a small empty apartment out of Wellington and nominate it as a “home base”, when it would not have fitted within the definition of a primary residence as most people understood it.

In theory yes it is possible an Minister could move their family to Wellington, and sell their five bedroom house in the electorate and designate a small apartment as their home base. But there is always a way for venal people to rort the rules – and if any tried to do that, I would hope the media will expose that.

You could try and have a rule that an MP does not downgrade their home residence while they are an MP, but frankly it is unworkable – what if their kids move out of home etc.

So no problems with the change, but I do think it would be desirable to do a further change – to ban MPs from claiming the allowance for a property they have a direct or indirect interest in.

It was reported last week that Lockwood Smith has decided not to include details of how much each MP has used of their “travel” perk, as it is discouraging MPs from using it – which is unfair as the value of the perk is deducted from their remuneration package in setting their salary.

Now Lockwood has identified the problem correctly, but in this rare instance I disagree with his solution.

It is unfair to be deducting the value of the perk from the salary, and to be having witch hunts against those who use it. But the solution is to abolish the travel perk and increase the salary – not to try and keep the details secret.

Lockwood and the PM have opened up the books greatly, and doing so is a one way street effectively. Even if the Parliamentary Service only now publish the total amount of travel perks used, the media will question each individual MP about whether they have used it, and so the end result will be the same.

The Herald quotes Rodney Hide saying much the same:

“Why don’t you just pay the MPs, don’t allow the rebate and cover their legitimate expenses?”

While the Green Party is looking at releasing their rebate details anyway, Hide could not speak on behalf of all his MPs on whether they would follow suit.

“I don’t think the speaker can put the genie back into the bottle, because people quite naturally expect transparency and accountability and it would be impossible to explain, in this day and age, that this rebate is being paid out of an MP’s salary, even though it is.”

I agree with Rodney that this is what should happen. There has been an argument that the travel perk should stay, because it is the only way to recognise more experienced MPs service. But I would say that if we wish to do that, then do it directly through salaries. There is no reason the Remuneration Authority can’t be asked to set a slightly higher salary for MPs who have served a certain number of years. some may argue against this also – my point is one should set the salary to cover all remuneration, and then just have legitimate expenses claimed.

Some MPs do use their travel perk for a mixture of work and play – such as travelling to meet colleagues in other countries. But that can be funded from the Leader’s Budget. If the argument is their budgets are not big enough to cover that, then lets debate that, rather than keep the travel perk which will never be accepted by the public – inevitably it will go the same way as the perk for ex MPs.

The Herald editorial:

In straitened economic times, the renegotiation of contracts routinely results in employees losing allowances or other benefits. Rarely is the base salary raised in compensation.

This starts with a false premise. The triennial review is not something done due to the recession. It happens every three years.

The Herald also makes another false premise – that people do not get compensated for losing allowances. Most senior employees are on a total remuneration package. So if for example you get a company car for private use, then your salary drops to keep the total package the same.

The authors of the review, Sir Doug Kidd, a former Speaker of the House, and economist Philip Barry, are certainly right to bring the boom down on these perks. No one has ever mounted a coherent explanation for them being necessary for an MP’s job.

I agree, which is why they are deducted from their total remuneration, to give MPs a lower salary than would otherwise be the cause.

In practice, they furnish a generously subsidised pursuit of pleasure. They were introduced by Cabinet, not an independent commission, supposedly as compensation for parliamentarians accepting lower salaries.

But the independent Remuneration Authority does deduct them from their salary package. It has done so since 2003.

Yet there has never been a time when there was a shortage of people wishing to be MPs. Further, most pay little heed to the money on offer.

The review does not explain why MPs should be compensated for the loss of a benefit that bears no relationship to their work and should never have been granted. Nor does it say why parliamentarians should be treated differently to members of the public.

Again they are being treated no differently to any other employee on a total remuneration package. The Remuneration Authority will not be instructed to increase MPs salaries if the perks disappear – it will be obliged under the law to do so because they explicitly deduct them from the package to calculate salaries at the moment. And they can not deduct something if it no longer exists.

Think of an analogy. Say you have a contract with your employer that they will pay you a total package of $120,000 a year. Now they pay $10,000 into a superannuation fund on your behalf, so your actual salary if $110,000. The company decides that it no longer is appropriate to be offering a superannuation scheme so they scrap it. Well then they will automatically adjust your salary up to $120,000 to keep the total package the same.

I know this is not a popular position to take, but it is a principled position that MPs should not be treated differently to anyone else on a total remuneration package.

Every three years a review of parliamentary spending is done. The boring name disguises that these are very important reviews as it is almost the only external scrutiny of how Parliament functions.

This review was done by former Speaker Doug Kidd and economist Philip Barry. There are 28 recommendations – some well overdue. I’m going to blog and comment on most of them.

That an independent program manager be appointed by the five parliamentary agency CEOs (if necessary, by direction of the Speaker, the Attorney General and Prime Minister) with responsibility for and the necessary delegated authority and funding to deliver the ICT rationalisation program developed by Government Technology Services.

This is a minimum step. It is insane that different parts of Parliament are on different computer systems.

Personally I would go much further and seriously look at a full merger of all five agencies into one “Department of Parliament”. You would still have specialist sections for Cabinet Office, legal drafting etc and they can be given autonomy over their policy functions. However you would have just one IT system, one HR system, one accounting system etc etc. I reckon the savings would be in the millions.

That MPs’ out-of-Parliament staffing entitlements be converted to a monetary value and the funding integrated with MPs’ funding for out-of- Parliament non-staff expenditure.

That the funding for MPs’ executive assistants and some communications entitlements also be integrated within the single budget recommended in recommendation two above.

I strongly support these recommendations. It effectively bulk funds MPs and allows them to decide how to spend their budget. At present an MP gets one parliamentary executive assistant and two (one for list) electorate agents whose salaries are set by a scale, and around $65,000 on top of that.

This system would see an electorate MP get around $220,000 total and a List MP around $150,000, and they would have total discretion about how to spend it. A List MP might hire just one parliamentary staffer for $50,000 and spend $100,000 on communications. An electorate MP might decide to hire a top class EA for $75,000 and have only one electorate staff member for example.

The inclusion of communications into a bulk fund would also provide some incentive for keeping such costs down, as they are met centrally at the moment. Labour would be less likely to run phone banks from Rick Barker’s office if they had to cover the costs of the calls from their budget.

That a pilot scheme be set up permitting MPs or recognised parties to directly employ MPs’ support staff if they wish.

Staff are officially employed by The Parliamentary Service itself, even though the MPs decide who get hired and who gets sacked.There are some dangers in making MPs the official employers (would mean MPs themselves could end up in employment court) but the option of letting each parliamentary party be the employer has some merit.

That consideration be given to broadening the class of family members for which restrictions on employment as an MP’s support staff apply.

At present only spouses, partners and dependent children are excluded from working for their partner or parent. The suggestion is it includes siblings and parents also.

I’m not sure on this one. A wider ban is becoming common overseas, but I recall Rodney Hide had his sister as his EA for many years and it was absolutely successful and professional.

That the already-purchased x-ray machine facility be installed at the Bowen House entrance without delay.

No no no. Don’t do it. They’re a waste of time that was forced on Parliament after 9/11. I’m personally not inconvenienced by them as I have a pass, but they just give a false sense of security.

That the remunerative aspects of MPs’ entitlements be removed from the entitlements provided for in the Speaker’s Directions so that the parliamentary business expenses of MPs can be identified for the purposes of the next appropriations review.

That the rebate for private international travel by MPs and their spouses or partners be discontinued and a new entitlement be established allowing MPs to travel internationally for professional development purposes.

That domestic air travel for each spouse/partner and dependent (under the age of five) be limited to an appropriate number of return trips per annum.Those return trips could be anywhere in the country but should be associated with parliamentary business.

That entitlements for MPs to travel by rail, bus and ferry be restricted to travel for parliamentary business and their spouses/partners and dependents be restricted to travel associated with parliamentary business.

This set of recommendations has attracted the most headlines, but also the most misunderstanding. They are very good recommendations which should be supported. First we need to understand how an MPs salary is currently calculated. The Remuneration Authority calculates a total remuneration level for MPs, and then deducts off the value of certain “perks” to get a base salary.

This means that if you eliminate the “perks”, then the base salary will increase. But this is not an increase in their total remuneration. And in fact it is more transparent and caps the ability of an MP to game the perks. Take the 2008 remuneration:

• Salary $131,000
• Superannuation $26,200
• 5% of MPs domestic travel $1,176
• 45% of spouses domestic travel $3,449
• 100% of MPs/spouses international travel $9,646
• Total $171,471

The percentages are what proportion of an entitlement the IRD has calculated to be of “private benefit”.

Now what the review has proposed is that spouses travel be restricted to parliamentary business and they get rid of the international travel entitlement. These are valued at around $13,000 so it would automatically increase the salary by that much to keep the package the same.

I think it is fairer and cleaner to stop the entitlements, and have the salary package reflect this.

That entitlements and allowances for MPs be set by an independent body. This body could be an independent Officer of Parliament.

This is common sense but don’t hold your breath waiting for it to happen.

That, for the purposes of the Wellington accommodation entitlement, MPs entering Parliament from the next general election not be able to claim public funding for premises owned by either an MP or an interested party. The funding for premises owned directly or indirectly by current MPs should be grand-parented while the MP continues in Parliament.

This is exactly what I have been advocating for over a year. MPs should not be their own landlords – either directly or through fronts like the Greens superannuation scheme.

The definition of an interested party should include family, another MP, or a political party, plus associated companies and trusts.

That the level of the Wellington accommodation entitlement remain capped at $24,000 p.a.

This is around $460 a week, which is sufficient to rent an apartment or to cover three nights a week in a hotel.

That the Speaker’s Directions be amended to define the expenses that may be claimed as expenses incurred “in respect of accommodation” and the definition be limited to rent and utilities.

This is a minor change to exclude rates and cleaning.

That the definition of the Wellington commuting area be extended to include the Kapiti Coast up to the Waikanae River.

Seems fair. Basically it means if you live in Pararparaumu you are expected to commute in, rather than live in Wellington.

That the amount of the individual members’ support entitlement be set by an independent regulator.

Yes. The agreement between National and Maori Party to increase funding to Maori electorate MPs was the wrong way to do it and set a bad precedent,

If an independent regulator is not given responsibility for determining the individual members’ support entitlement, that:
a. a cross-party agreement on the appropriate funding regime
be entered into;
b. the funding for the Maori/largest electorates be altered to
$87,588;
c. East Coast and Taranaki-King Country electorates be added to the Maori/large electorate tier of funding; and
d. that an additional intermediate tier, receiving $87,588 (but not an extra staff member), be established consisting of the
Northland, Rangitikei and Wairarapa electorates and up to five
electorates in the lowest socio-economic areas of the country.

I much prefer to have some clear principles and have the level of support funding determined independently. The backup proposal above is an improvement on the status quo but still flawed. For example the rental costs in metro central city electorates can be massively higher than in other seats. So having extra funding tied just to size is problematic.

Also with the proposed extra funding for electorates in low socio-economic areas can be improved. Personally I would give those electorates an additional staff member rather than extra funding.

That MPs entering Parliament from the next general election not be able to receive public funding for out-of-Parliament offices owned by an MP or an interested party. The funding for premises owned directly or indirectly by current MPs should be grand-parented while the MP continues in Parliament.

The definition of an interested party should include a political party and a union affiliated to a political party. The review excludes them from being an interested party.

If recommendation 24 is not accepted, that funding for an MP’s out-of-Parliament office owned by an MP or interested party be limited to 80% of the independently determined market rental for the property. The present funding arrangements for premises owned directly or indirectly by current MPs should, however, be grand-parented while the MP continues in Parliament.

This is also something I have advocated.

That the above recommendations for changes to the system of allowances and entitlements for MPs take effect from the start of the next parliamentary term.

Makes sense. Let’s hope MPs will act or most, if not all, of the recommendations.