Its the first anniversary today for the Parliamentary Class of 2008. Pause for obligatory, “phew, that’s gone fast’ moment. It really has. I will leave to others the assessments of how well everyone is doing. I have a question on my mind.
One of the most common questions I am asked would be ” is it what you expected?”. Typically for a politician the answer for me is yes and no. I had worked for politicians before so I had some idea of the content of the work, but what has been eye-opening is the relentlessness of the job, and the emotional roller-coaster.
But what I thought would be more interesting is to ask you, is what I do, what you would expect from an MP? I have done a bit of work to look back over the year and have come up with some stats and some thoughts, and I would love to know what you reckon.
First, the stats. On average I work between 60-70 hours a week. That is divided up something like this
- 20-25 hours on consitutuency work, by which I mean meeting constituents, groups in the electorates, visits to schools, businesses etc, following up their issues, going to events in the electorate, meeting civic leaders, holding clinics etc.
- 15-20 hours on Parliamentary business, ie being in the debating chamber, select committee work. This includes reading and preparation time. There is a bit of crossover here with portfolio work of course.
- 10-15 hours per week on portfolio related matters, ie meeting stakeholders, doing speeches, going to portfolio related events, reading, researching.
- about 5 hours a week on media and communications, this includes regular interviews, preparation for interviews, blogging, writing columns and newsletters.
In addition I would probably do about 10 hours a week on Party related matters. Almost all of this occurs outside what you would call “normal working hours”
Second, how it feels. Its an immense honour and privilege, rewarding, hellishly frustrating and a lot of fun all at the same time. People are very keen to talk and to hear what I have to say, and they are relying on me to help them, or give them some hope or just be there to listen. On the constituency stuff it is very easy to get sucked into the emotion of many of the cases that I deal with. I am also conscious that it can be quite reactive. I have tried to be more proactive with establishing things like a Youth Advisory Group, starting dialogue with different ethnic groups and helping various community groups with their projects, but its hard to get past what, and who, comes through the door and needs attention.
I am going to devote a seperate post to policy making and articulation and being in opposition, but finding the time to read widely on the topics is a struggle, but there are loads of good people out there willing to share their ideas. We also get to meet and hear from some remarkable people in our community.
So is that what you think an MP should be doing? Do the priorities look all right to you? What’s not there that should be?
I think the list looks about right, it’s a pretty gruelling job and I take my hat off to all of you. Nobody can expect any more than that. I’m sure you’re all doing your best.
Crikey, I hadn’t totalled up all the hours, but it certainly looks about right.
Here’s a piece I wrote this week which was published in the ODT on my first year. http://www.odt.co.nz/print/80789
One of the hardest parts of this job is prioritising as there’s always “so much more to do”. But it’s also hugely rewarding. Thanks for your post Grant.
I don’t think the public realises that most MPs work hard and are very passionate that their beliefs are what is best for NZ…
I would like to see a cross party bill tidying up the perks relating to housing and travel allowance (i.e. greater transparency) with as much as possible traded off for an increase in base salary…
Deleted offensive. Banned for three months for trolling, Clare
Great piece
@Jeremy
I do wonder if any of the perks are tax-free. If they are tax-free, then giving the same amount of benefit as a base salary increase would mean taking away 38% of it in taxes. That doesn’t seem very nice, given the workload.
It is worthwhile to do a calculation. If they are working 70 hours per week and they make $131,000… 37.5 is a normal full-time job in NZ. Being an MP then means if they were working a full-time job, they would be making $70,178. An *entry level* university lecturer can make that much. A city council manager can make that much. People in IT can easily make that much.
They make more because they work more. If an MP didn’t do that amount of work, she/he would not be an MP very long. Those hours are a job requirement, not a choice.
A tax-free housing allowance for time spent in Wellington is a good idea. Otherwise, we would have to pay MPs much more to get the same result considering taxes, and people would gripe even more because their salaries look even bigger than the allowance was. For other jobs, there is a recognition that it costs more to function in Wellington, than, say, Gore.
I mean, for goodness’ sake, these people are making the laws that affect all of us. They vote on multi-billion-dollar budgets. This is basically a board of directors for a massive enterprise. And we are all the shareholders. Treating them right will have direct benefits for the rest of us.
Not to mention if we lower their stress level in any way we can, they will live longer. And we want that for our lovely MPs, don’t we?
Andrew
“Not to mention if we lower their stress level in any way we can, they will live longer. And we want that for our lovely MPs, don’t we?” – LOL
cough, it depends on who they are, cough.
Well are they tax free Andrew..?
You’ve just assumed and then gone on a big explanation that if so it’s unfair… If so, why can’t that be taken into account when changing them from “perks” to “salary”, i.e. figure out their value and add 38%..?
I want to see that MPs have to explain where they have gone and how it is Parliamentary business before they claim travel allowances and this information is open for public consumption, I’m a public servant and drive up to 6 hours a day and that’s what I have to do…
On housing allowances, I think MPs should be able to claim rent or mortgage on one property in their electorate or Wellington…
A set budget, say $20,000 a year for family member travel…
Everything else consolidated into salary…
Hey, did you hear that there may be an underground movement in North Dunedin to institute a high poll tax? Quality v. quantity. Perhaps not a movement; maybe just an attitude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax#Tax_on_voting
Poll tax? How awful
I don’t think that’ll get any traction though.
I think that was how they were going to repel students from going there. Those whipper-snappers are way too active and rowdy. Take away their right to vote and maybe they will go to Auckland instead.
The “quality” students won’t care, since participating in something so common as democracy is below them. I mean, voting presumes that you are equal to others, that others can think about issues as well as you can.
Can’t we just assign a Nobel-Prize-winning dictator?
I’d like to see the Dunedin economy try to survive without them, especially with the stadium. Students come from all walks of life …
You have it all wrong. The goal is to drive people away and reduce the local economy. The last person left will be the only one voting for mayor, and can then win every time. No stress, no pesky protesters. There might be a problem with rates, then. That person will be a National person, because when you are alone, you can elite. There is nothing more elite than being the only one.
This is a Labour area. Dunedin South is a *strong* Labour area. National has to squash it. First you have to make the stadium fail. Give the city money so they go through with it, taking all the political risks. Then squeeze the user base. You do that by reducing the size of the university, and being skeptical as I am, I see the recent cuts as evidence of that intention.
The university has to save face and make it seem like that was all part of its plan. Shrinking is about “quality.”
You see, as the town contracts, they can tear down all the old (and new) buildings and return the area to its natural state 250 years ago. Of course, they’d have to bring back the whales to do that right.
That’s it! National are really environmentalists. They are just trying to restore the natural environment of Dunedin.
You have fun then with Chin and co, send me pictures of the new Dunedin wasteland.
Do you think they will be returning St Kilda back to the sea? Never mind, I’m sure Dunedin is overdue for a tsunami. 
I don’t know why I thought of this, but it reminds me when I was in student government back home.
Every year like clockwork, students and alumni would make a little journey up to the statehouse and meet with their elected state leadership. They usually had a set agenda of things the students and university needed. This was an invariably a positive experience.
Of course, the political clout of the students and alumni were magnified by their families, businesses, law firms, business partners, and so on. It wasn’t just one person going up there with a little notebook and a bunch of ideas.
Alumni took a real interest in the quality of the university as well as the quantity of students who could go there and improve themselves. Their donations created a university endowment of $1.55 billion.
http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/9782.html
Do Otago alumni exert the political influence they have as a group?
http://www.alumni.otago.ac.nz/Page.aspx?pid=338
I can’t figure out how much those trusts maintain. It must be small. There are no financial reports on the page. It does interest me that 5 out of the 7 trustees of the Otago Foundation are university employees, including the VC.
This is completely bizarre to me. Business leaders, lawyers, judges, newspaper owners…
http://iufoundation.iu.edu/about/board-principal-directors.html
Hello. All of the producing society in Indiana (population 6 million) is represented as part of IU’s Foundation.
If the university dominates the Foundation, that seems to imply that alumni are not that interested in doing so.
Why is that? Are they not welcome?
Someone, do a survey.
Sorry, that was 4 out of 6. Eyes playing tricks, there.
The president of IU is from Australia.
Call it Sundayitis, but I’m confused?
They are still moderating a post, there. If they allow it, it will all make sense.
Must be an automatic thing if you include links.
I know the feeling, I’ve been moderated a lot lately and they say it’s because of some computer glitch. Look forward to reading your post
If you write me an email, I will copy and paste it in the meanwhile.
andrewudstraw@alumni.iu.edu
@Andrew and Spud. Good idea that you talk to each other. Not that we mind you chatting via Red Alert. But we like bringing people together.
I went to Otago for a semester to study Bioethics. I guess that makes me part of the team, right?
Get a foundation going that concentrates on excellence and *students* — especially low-income students– and I will donate $1,000 to it.
I’ll only do that if the board is 90% alumni.
I really want to thank you for airing your views, printing what we say, and providing this productive forum.
You know, I have written to the ODT with columns many times. Sometimes the print them. Sometimes they take a column, slash it all up, and turn it into a poorly-written letter.
I don’t respect a paper that does that.
This blog has engaged me more than 6 years of reading the ODT and submitting columns.
Um, what the hell does all this have to do with, “What should MPs be doing”..?
@jeremyH – perhaps they are saying, in a round about way, that what MPs need to do is listen.
As for students at Otago – Dn needs them – its what makes Dn so great – warts and all. As an ex Otago grad, It would be a mistake to not celebrate the good things that the students bring.
@Paul – that’s a bingo!
@Andrew I like your foundation idea and agree the uni should be for students and learning.
students want this change. They don’t like an unresponsive university. I don’t think that changes when people leave.
Students could take charge and drive this reform. Create a pledge drive and get 1,000 alumni to give $1,000. I have offered mine, so you only need 999 more. Those pledges do not turn into cash until the university agrees to cede control of the foundation to alumni. Once the alumni have control, they can raise money from other alumni and create a culture of involvement and school spirit, not an atmosphere of elitism.
I mentioned that $1.55 billion endowment alumni have raised at IU for a reason. It’s not to brag. It is to say let’s do it here.
I’m going to do a little experiment. I have not looked it up, but I suspect there is a direct relationship between alumni involvement, a student perspective, and the university using Facebook at Auckland. I’ll be back in a minute to let you know if this hypothesis is correct.
Exactly as I suspected.
“The Trustees are drawn from alumni of The University of Auckland and the general public.”
http://www.uoafoundation.org.nz/
Like a chemical equation, you know what comes out the other side.
Gee, they even provide their financial information right there. As of 2008, they have $60 million.
I would have expected more, them being in Auckland, but still. The different attitude is evident, and it has a practical effect on the tone of the university.
Auckland has a “Campus Life” page and a Campus Life Director.
http://www.calendar.auckland.ac.nz/personnel/campus-life.html
It’s all about the alumni. They need to take their university back, not for themselves, but for the future students and the reputation of their alma mater.
The language of power is money, so to do this they are going to have to pony up.
I was able to get 700 students, faculty, and the city council (all of it, both parties) to sign a petition against student aid cuts.
Alumni are even more powerful than that. They are a political force, multi-partisan, and they hold change in their hands.
@Andrew – true – but will we all be able to agree…
Getting back to politics…
Education is the question John Key seems to be pondering on the front of the Listener, at least to me.
1. universities tend to lean left, and giving money to them is like supporting the enemy
2. growth depends on innovation and educated people are the ones who do it. Economies that neglect tertiary education fall behind economically and socially. This is a fact.
3. university lecturers are still about 30% behind salary-wise when compared with Australia. At least that was what I last heard. I don’t think that counts their 17% retirement pension contribution.
4. university alumni are only moderately interested in staying in touch with their universities, especially Otago.
5. universities could be a serious driver of change, but that depends a lot on what alumni do. Why do they leave the country? Is it just the money, or are those people looking for more? Emotional connections, perhaps? The Otago marketing lady said that was just “fluff” what she saw on Auckland’s FB site. Campus life on most universities I have ever been to had a lot to do with emotion, spirit. You’re going to have emotions no matter what happens. If students are happy, when they get drunk they do happy things. Same goes with hidden anger. If students go through university with hidden anger, by the end they are fed up and want to leave not just the university, but the country!
6. so John Key could give liberally–yes, LIBERALLY–to education, raising salaries and increasing living conditions for students, but he is making political calculations.
7 without doing that, we will stay right where we are.
Calculate, John, calculate!
Grant and others,
It’s apparent that you work long hours. Out of interest, how much time (if any) have you and your colleagues devoted to addressing the Peter Ellis case? (balance deleted as threadjack Trevor)
Surprisingly I am going to try something different from the many comments above which appear to be a chat between two keyboards, I’ll address Grant’s post.
First up, I am one of your constituents. I don’t say that in one of those ‘clench fist, do as I say Mr My Representative’, but as somebody who moved in to the electorate at the beginning of the year and would like to use this comment section to say:
You’ve done a good job in your first year, Grant. I’m looking forward to seeing the next one, and those thereafter. A bright spark with a good career ahead. Well done.
Yep, your job is gruelling. There is one absolute beauty though, you’re the MP for Wellington Central – putting aside the many other positives of that title, let’s focus on this one: less of a commute than the other MPs.