The proposed amendment had the full support of Labour's deputy leader, Annette King.
The proposed amendment had the full support of Labour's deputy leader, Annette King.
Opinion
MPs become accustomed to free travel in their daily work. Perhaps that is why they think they deserve more of the same in their retirement. And why most parliamentarians were ready to go out of their way to address a mistake of their own making that, ironically, has worked tothe taxpayers' advantage.
The public's patience has already been severely tested in the matter of travel perks, especially the use of international entitlements for near-free holiday travel for senior MPs and their partners. Yet until yesterday's intervention by the Greens, MPs were preparing once again to put self-interest ahead of the public interest.
They were due to attend to a supplementary order paper National's Simon Bridges said corrected a drafting error in the 2013 Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Act. It amended the sum of taxpayers' money that former MPs who were in Parliament before 1999 and their spouses are entitled to spend on international travel. Before the 2013 act, this was pegged to the lowest Air New Zealand business-class return fare between Auckland and London. The change did not mention the national carrier and referred to "the lowest-cost online business-class return air fare as at July 1".
The proposed amendment had the full support of Labour's deputy leader, Annette King. She said the fare rebate had been tied to Air New Zealand since the 1970s. The supplementary order paper was, she claimed, echoing Mr Bridges, all about fixing a mistake. That error, however, has served the public's interest.
As every international traveller knows, increased competition on routes to Europe has prompted considerable differences in the fares on offer. Usually, Air New Zealand is not the cheapest option. Indeed, legal blogger Graeme Edgeler has estimated the change could increase the maximum rebate from $11,000 to about $20,000 a year. Astoundingly, Ms King claimed the allowance would have been cheaper if benchmarked to Air New Zealand.
The amendment required the support of all parties to proceed. Therein lay an opportunity to strike a blow for the taxpayer. Initially, the chances seemed remote. Ms King spoke of the Greens and New Zealand First agreeing that when an error had been made, it should be corrected. Fortunately, the Greens have had a rethink and will block the change. Co-leader Metiria Turei said: "We can't see any reason to move away from specifically tying the value of the rebate to the lowest cost option."
The Greens' stand is encouraging. For once, MPs will not be able to cast aside their political differences and agree to look out for their joint wellbeing. For once, a perk will not be applied in the most advantageous manner. MPs' previous behaviour over those they particularly value has created simmering public resentment. This prompted the Prime Minister to act, misguidedly, when their latest pay hike was awarded by the Remuneration Authority. Yet only days later, most MPs were prepared to add to that resentment. The Greens, at least, have shown they place some value on the respect of the public.
