David Farrar: A guide to travel perks for MPs

You would think there has been only one issue in politics the last fortnight – travel perks. Never mind debates over GST, ACC, sickness benefit, productivity and unemployment. The front pages have been devoted to MPs travel.

Now I personally regard travelling by plane as a form of torture slightly better than water boarding. Most regular travelers see it as much the same – it is just something you endure to get to somewhere you want to be. And that is where the desirability kicks in. The perk is not flying to Paris. The perk is getting to be in Paris.

So what are all the different travel subsidies that exist for MPs, and how reasonable are they. I rate their reasonableness out of 10.

Domestic Air Travel for MPs

Parliament meets in Wellington. Most MPs live elsewhere, plus MPs get invited to speak at conferences and the like all over the country. Just as employees don’t have to pay for their own work-related travel, neither should MPs.

This would be a 10/10 but there is no actual requirement that the travel be work related. Now the vast majority of it is, and few MPs use it to fly to Queenstown for a holiday – but they could. However if one sticks in a requirement that the travel be work related only, that raises the question of who decides that. Is it bureaucrats in the Parliamentary Service?

While I do not believe it is abused, it only gets a 9/10 due to the potential for abuse. A sensible change would be to restrict it for parliamentary business only, but do not require pre-approval.

The Remuneration Authority treats 5% of the cost of this subsidy as of private benefit and hence deducts $1,500 off each MPs pay packet in compensation.

Domestic Air Travel for Partners

There is only one restriction on this – that it not be for private business purposes. So if the partner/spouse is a lawyer, he or she can’t use the subsidy to fly to Christchurch to meet clients.

The Remuneration Authority and IRD have found 45% of this perk has “private benefit” so in 2003 deducted $3,400 off MPs salaries as reimbursement.

It is highly desirable that partners of MPs can fly to Wellington, as that is where their partner will spend a third to more than half of their life while an MP.

It does not seem necessary to have travel to anywhere in NZ though. A case could be made that it can only be used for travel between the electorate and Wellington.

This rates an 8/10 for reasonableness – could be tightened up.

International Travel for Parliamentary Purposes

This is not a perk at all and is a 10/10. The rules simply say that if an MP has legitimate parliamentary reasons to travel overseas, and their party leader and the Speaker approve the travel, then the costs of the travel come from the party’s parliamentary budget.

This allows spokespersons to do policy related travel. Ministers have a speerate funding line through Ministerial Services.

Spouses can not be funded from the party’s parliamentary budget (unless it is for a party leader’s spouse),

The Opposition Leader can spend (from his or her own budget) up to $50,000 a year on international travel – and can travel with both a partner and a staff member – much the same as Ministers used to.

The key difference with this subsidy, and the earlier ones, is this comes out of the limited parliamentary budget for that party. So they have an incentive to not approve un-necessary travel. The domestic travel subsidies come out of a general parliamentary budget and there was little incentive for keeping costs down, until the costs per MP were published.

Private International Travel for MPs

This is the one that gets most of the attention. It can’t be used for business purposes, but does not have to be for parliamentary purposes. The subsidy is 0% for those elected in 2008, 25% for those in 2005, 50% for those in 2002, 75% for those in 1999 and 90% for those elected in 1996.

This is a 100% perk and the average cost is deducted fully from MPs salaries - $x in 2003.

There is no really good rationale for the perk – unlike the domestic travel. MPs have access to funding for parliamentary related international travel. You can argue MPs can use it to mix holiday and parliamentary business overseas – but they can also use it to holiday in Hawaii.

It is a 3/10 at best and should go. However MPs salaries will go up to compensate.

Private International Travel for Partners

They have an equal entitlement to the MP – in fact they do not even need to use it to travel with the MP.

This has even less justification – a 1/10 as they partner can use this to holiday with their boyfriend/girlfriend while the MP is working back home.

MPs children domestic travel

A child of an MP can have four free flights a year between Wellington and their primary place of residence. If they are under five there is no limit.

I give this an 8/10. Allowing the kids once a term to visit their Mum or Dad at work in Wellington is small compensation for them not seeing them half the year.

Former MPs travel

Former MPs, who were elected before 1999, can get a subsidy of up to 90% (if they served at least five full terms) for 12 domestic return flights a year and international travel up to the value of a business class return fare to London. Their spouses get the perk also – even after the MP has died.

This perk was so indefensible Parliament voted to stop it for all new MPs from 1999 onwards. It is a 0/10. So in time it will disappear. Some say it should also stop for former MPs elected before 1999, while those former MPs claim it was part of their “employment” contract for being an MP.

I think this perk should also cease for existing former MPs who qualify, but by buying it back off them in exchange for a reasonable lump sum.