In the interest of transparency thought it best to let the world know I’m going to Europe later in the week.
Not to do altitude training before the Taupo bike race but to London.
When last in opposition I did it a couple of times. Met with education leaders, people involved in think tanks, politics, mainly Labour but others from the other parties, including tea with the then physically fading Maggie whose mind was then still as sharp as a tack.
Played rugby for the Commons and Lords team and even improvised the haka using the main trunk line place names when the 250 people in the room meant I lost the words. And that was on a side trip to Paris.
I made lots of contacts, indeed friends, with whom I could communicate outside the normal Ministry channels, test ideas and priorities without being caught up in short term local agendas.
It also gave me a bit of time to think and write – something that I am doing more of these days.
I used the discount for longer serving parliamentarians and stayed at a late friends house because, unlike Ministers, except in very limited circumstances involving official tours or meetings there is no other budget for this.
I will meet with some of these people again, and with a new generation of education thinkers. I’m lucky because there happen to be some Aussies over there at the same time sharing ideas on developing strategic leadership in education. We made massive progress at talent identification and support during the last government and we do good research here but I’m interested in options for the next step.
Of course it works two ways. There are people really interested in the progress we made in early childhood education and reintegrating physical activity in schools.
And just to make what is obvious to those who know me well completely transparent – there are international rugby matches that I will watch. I will be a guest of the Rugby Union at Twickenham, might meet up with the IRB RWC people and hope to see one of my kids play.
I will be travelling alone. And staying with a former flatmate. And using the discount again.
Using the discount, you mean the one where 90% of your travel costs are paid by the taxpayer because you’ve been an MP since before 1999..?
It also gave me a bit of time to think and write – something that I am doing more of these days.
Well, write anyway. Not sure about the other, mate.
“using the discount again”? Does that mean what I think it means?
Good on you for being upfront Trevor, though I think this is all getting a bit silly. The perk exists and is legal, so I don’t think those who qualify for it and use it should be making the news or have to out themselves in advance.
If we are going to talk about it though, surely the conversation should be about whether the perk should continue to exist?
I reckon MPs need to think about having a more systematic means of being transparent. These kinds of individual disclosures attract attention because they stand out. Much better if everything was automatically and publicly declared. Macdoctor, I hope that was just a quip, because it came across as small and petty. Maybe you know Trevor and this was a friendly jibe but if not it was a shallow thing to say. I’ve got some time for your own blogging efforts and had counted you as one of the smarter commentators in the blogosphere. Then you go and spit out something like that. Like I say, maybe it was a joke.
Good on you Trev
I hope you have a good time in London. 
Is use of the discounted travel taxed as a fringe benefit?
I’d assume it should be as it is clearly a monetary value that accrues to the employee. If it is taxed as a fringe benefit then I don’t really see there is an issue with politicians using it – it is just part of total compensation, and the correct debate to have is whether the total compensation is sensible. That also raises issues of equity between MP’s like Trevor (and those of his vintage) who get the full discount but newer MP’s dont.
Trevor, as you’ve started the post and clearly don’t mind talking about compensation issues – can you clarify whether the travel discount is taxed as a fringe benefit? And if it isn’t – why is that?
I seriously believe that most of the hysteria would disappear if the discount is taxable under FBT.
My understanding is that it is taxable under FBT on a formula decided by the IRD. Digging deep into memory there is a discounting for the average work related proportion of the cost of MPs travel, but that partners travel is subject to FBT at the full rate.
Discount of a business class fare?
Just saw a story on the herald which explains it quite well.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10608523
It does seem like there is some special treatment for parliamentarians going on here which has IRD assuming an average for all MP’s rather than the actual spent. So it seems if you get a benefit of more than $5780 per annum of travel discounts, anything above that is tax free. As a private sector business owner I certainly don’t get that sort of benefit.
The MP’s deal is a far more preferential treatment than for anyone in the private sector.
You guys (MP’s of all political colours) should seize the moral high ground in a bi-partisan way and get parliamentary services to rework the benefits in a more commercially normal fashion.
Full disclosure is the most effective control on any behaviour. Combine that with standard commercial practice and this argument goes away. Then unusually, us taxpayers might see parliamentarians doing what we expect them to do without petty distractions!
Does this mean Trev that your salary is less than a member elected after 1999 in order to compensate for the cost of the discount or is it that the rules are skewed so that longer serving members get more on a Total Cost of Employment basis?
That would be quite at odds with the oft repeated claim that the base remuneration for all MPs is the same regardless of length of service. More than one MP has whinged that a new member gets exactly the same as a 20 year veteran.
No David. And while you might suggest it is an experience component of the remuneration package I couldn’t possibly comment.
And you clearly mix with different MPs to the ones I do.
I don’t really think there is much justification for continuing the overseas travel perk for MPs and spouses. It doesn’t exist for anybody else in the private sector.
If MPs’ salaries need to be adjusted accordingly to account for the loss of the perk, then so be it.
I don’t have a problem with domestic travel being paid for for spouses and families but the international travel allowance is just untenable in my view.
If there are legitimate parliamentary reasons why an MP should travel overseas (and Mr Mallard you’ve put up a good case for an MP’s personal development and forming connections) then in my view this should be paid for by the Leaders’ budget as a training and development budget, decided and justified by the Leader on a case by case basis.
I think DavidW, you can argue that all MP’s get paid the same but those that receive more than $5780 in discounts can effectively increase their remuneration on a tax free basis. ie if MP#1 spends nothing on discounted travel – they are paying $2,254 in tax that they dont see income for.
If MP#2 receives 15,780 in travel discounts they still only pay $2,254 in tax but receive $15,780 in income. they are significantly better off.
Because of the preferential treatment MP’s get from the IRD, MP’s are incentivised to spend as much as possible on subsidised travel as this gives them a tax free boost to income that appears to be limited only by their own ethical standards.
…. and $10,000 of that income for MP#2 is tax free. Anyone else would be paying $3,900 in tax on it.
MPs just need to get to grips with Media 101: a statistic is not a story.
If you asked 100 voters what the overall salaries are for MPs/Ministers, you might find one person who knows.
But if you say … Paris! Hawaii! Girlfriend! Rugby! … there’s the story.
Just dump the discount, sort out a decent lump-sum remuneration, and then get on with the job.
I’ve no idea whether the current system saves or wastes taxpayers’ money. But it certainly keeps journalists happy.
Well, clearly this is a working trip for you. Hope you remember us back here at Red Alert and drop us a line or two.
If there are legitimate parliamentary reasons why an MP should travel overseas then in my view this should be paid for by the Leaders’ budget as a training and development budget, decided and justified by the Leader on a case by case basis.
That’s a bloody good idea!
Excuse my ignorance, but would that shrink the leaders’ budget? Would the leaders’ budget need to be increased to cover that? Would that then restrict what MPs can do?
It would depend on whether all the money is transfered over. Would be an interesting increase in the power of the leader.
Yes Mr Mallard I did reflect on the effect of increasing the leader’s power. It would also make the Leader accountable for the spending on international travel by MPs. Unlike the present system, where hypothetically an MP can take his or her partner overseas as much as they like, I can’t see that happen if it has to be budgeted for and approved by the Leader and justified as a relevant parliamentary or research expense.
I think there is probably a bit of romance around overseas travel that wears off the more one does for work. I think the trip that finally finished me thinking it was a benefit was one in 2005 which from memory was for 15 nights including Singapore, India, Bahrain Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar and Oman with a day trip to London in the middle to represent govt at ANZAC 90th celebrations.
Very successful trip in terms of educational links made and NZ education exports have certainly benefited by tens of millions of additional revenue as a result. And each of the countries had real points of interest.
But from memory of those 15 nights only eight were spent in a bed and when I came back I would have been quite happy never to catch a plane again.
This time won’t be so intense. There won’t be twenty or thirty on the delegation who need managing but if my experiences of a decade ago are repeated then the programme will have more and more added while I am away.
Tim don’t forget we have to get leave from the Leader to go offshore anyway and if an MP attempted to abuse the travel entitlement in the repeated way you describe the leader would stop it. At least both the current and the former leader of our party would.
That sounds gruelling, I imagine it would be hard. Still a tiny bit envious though.
The real question for Trevor is whether Labour MPs will support a wind up of the discount holiday airfares scheme. Its actually a mess.
There is no “public” interest in Mr Mallard’s rest and recreation either while being an MP or after he retires over an above the interest we all have in New Zealanders having a break from their work.
Mr Mallard should receive the $10k back in his salary that he is docked for his current and post retirement discount holiday travel entitlement. His holidaying with or without his partner should be entirely a private matter.
MPs should travel internationally to look at public policy elsewhere and make contacts. It’s actually essential for a small country and a small Parliament. And on that Mr Mallard is right.
It should be handled like it is with those who must regularly travel for professional development, for example senior doctors.
There should be a per annum budget allotted per MP which they can accumulate over the term but not carry between terms. Any personal rest and recreation on such travel should see the costs of travel apportioned between public and private benefit. The public interest in the travel should be approved by the Speaker along with any apportionment between that and private rest and recreation.
Simple really.
Mr Mallard should not have to “out himself” or seek to justify what he is doing. If he were directly paying for the travel for his own rest and recreation he would not have to.
This sounds like an MP going out to do his job so why isn’t it fully funded?
For what its worth, these are my thoughts on this whole argument.
1. MPs are elected by us to do our bidding – its long hours, not something they are thanked for, they put up with plenty of rubbish from us, and I don’t think its all that well paid when you consider what they need to do
2. Parters should be able to travel with them – it makes sense – I support this – and I don’t have a problem with the cost being carried – all or in part – by us. I would rather a happy mp who is able to be supported by family than one whose marriage breaks up, or whose kids hate them.
3. Partners/wifes should be able to travel around NZ with them – I have no issue with it
4. I have no issue with MP’s taking some leave and having a quick break while they are where ever they are – good luck to them – if its off the beaten track – pay for it yourself.
I think this whole issue was brewed up like a storm in a teacup and is nothing more than the media taking it out of context. Sure its different when an MP is ripping us off – but for Trev to feel it necessary to tell us where he is going and what hes doing and which bits are personal and no, I am going alone…well – I don’t care what rugby game you go see. Go, enjoy, you are allowed some time off – really, its normal and ok. (can’t see why you are not taking your partner – at least they can have some fun)
FGS – why are we not debating more important issues than travel perks.
“I made lots of contacts, indeed friends”
you read it here first, Trev is going to the UK to make friends…. guess he has run out of options here
Read the title of the post and had a horrible vision of you walking into the debating chamber in pumps and a little black dress …. curse you Trevor that vision will stay with me for days.
{ Deleted not relevant to post. Same for your other comments on this post.}
Chris Diack, I sense your deep shame over both Rodney Rort and Roger Rort, and suggest you drop the sanctimony. Trevor, good on you for being up front, and good on you for keeping up to date with overseas contacts, face to face. The parliament will be better for it.
If you are refering to the person who moderated your earlier comments I can’t tell who it was and I’m sure it didn’t make any difference. I’ve deleted your comment. Trevor
considering the treatment Trevor gave me, I should have rights to make postings, not comments.
Shall I ask someone else?
Doesn’t make much sense to me having looked at what is above but will leave in case anyone else can understand out of context. Trevor
Yep, agree with Chris on this one. Abolish the travel discount and pay MPs appropriately to compensate. Its ridiculous that MPs who were last elected in the 1980s are still receiving the money to travel.
For serving MPs the parties should get an allowance. Each trip needs to have a well argued rationale attched before approved and an official report after.
Gifts like free rugby tickets should be declared and FBT paid.
Looking forward to your reports on education theory in the UK, Trevor. Do they have National Standards?
mmm…Would the leaders budget be increased at a rate proportional to the number of MPs in the party?
For those that don’t spend the allotment, only a matter of time before it’s siphoned into another rort, opps I mean cost centre
@TopCat – I think there’s some legal contracty thing that means that the old ex MPs have to receive their entitlements or it breeches something. (Yep I’m tired and I’m not going to look it up
).
TVNZ news covered the story tonight backgrounding how the travel entitlement is part of the salary package :- http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/spotlight-mp-salaries-3135537/video
Will watch in the morning.
Trev , if the salary package includes a travel entitlement of roughly $5000 ( for private use only) how come Roger Douglas had a totally private trip of $30,000 or so.
Even Hides trip for two to Hawaii was $5000. And he repaid $12000 for his partner for a round the world trip.
The numbers dont add up
[...] mean an increase in salaries – but it also means costs are more certain. In a related issue Trevor Mallard (wisely) has blogged he is heading to London using the perk to meet some undisclosed people to chat to on education [...]
@gww – the “entitlement” figure is based on average cost of use of the discount. Most MPs don’t use any most years.
I think that the Act figures just show that those two members have used the discount more than the average MP.
Didnt Richard Worth do a PhD while an MP… at an Australian University… Ok it was part time.
How many MPs are doing formal study while they are full time MPs. Is this the new perk, adding to your CV
This openness of yours, Trev, its a bit of a chimera really, isn’t it? On the one hand we have you being all frank and honest about your intentions but then, on the other hand, you’re colluding with National Ltd® to conceal everyone else. What have you got to hide?
gww @ 10.21. The idea of writing and maybe contributing academic papers while a backbencher is in my opinion a good thing to do. I’m doing a bit of writing myself now there isn’t a Ministry doing drafts for me. Mainly recording some of the political issues around the introduction of the early childhood education changes in the first half of this decade, and around the quality profit trade off in ECE. I can’t imagine having the time to do a PhD from a university whose PhDs I value though.
And Red Alert can be both good fun and very distracting while writing.
Just watched the news item, I agree with Smith that it isn’t good if MPs are too scared to do their jobs because of how the expenses could be viewed by the public. I also think it was a good move that you came out in advance and explained your trip.
I don’t honestly know how much MPs should or shouldn’t be getting, I don’t have a problem with the perks, I have no opinion on it.
Good for you Trevor. It sounds like it’s mostly work, so it should be funded by your employer. It is not reasonable to expect anyone to not have any time off to do their own thing (taxpayers surely don’t own MPs 24 hours a day), so good on you for going to the rugby, too. And good on you for deliberately arranging the timing, there is nothing wrong with planning things in advance, rather than relying on serendipity.
I could really only be upset if, for example, you had spoken out strongly against this as an opposition MP, then gone and done the opposite – what is the word for that? Or if you had gone to do some work and then not actually done that work.
The commenters who have said “these sorts of arrangements are not available in the private sector” are clearly not working in the right part of the private sector.
Possibly the biggest mistake we “normal people” make when viewing this subject is to consider MPs as employees in an attempt to get some sort of comparisons that we can understand from our own experience. We now know that MPs do not see themselves as “employees” and remarkably few of them have experienced the disciplines of the private sector when it comes to following a set of clearly established procedures and accepting clearly imposed limitations.
This was best summed up by leader Phil who said that Trevor had advised him of the trip on Tuesday. How does that fit Trevor with your comment above that you must get your leader’s approval?
The treatment of the “company’s money” as a precious commodity is something that many are aware of. If these two statements can be reconciled, then one can only assume that this was a last minute trip and any frequent traveller knows that last minute trips and changes cost significantly more than trips where theer is time to assess travel options, carriers and connections.
This being the case Trevor, perhaps you would care to share the itinerary, flight details and costs of the plane and hotel bookings, and booking dates with the peasantry so that we can judge for ourselves just how insignificant the timing and travel choices you have made are.
And Trevor, you are not the only who has travelled extensively on business and been subject to intense scrutiny of every dollar spent in the process. One employer of my acquaintance insisted that the firm (one of New Zealand’s largest) would not pay for hotel laundry costs on any trip of under 2 weeks and kept the rule by insisting also that all costs were put on a personal credit card to be claimed back (or rejected for reimbursement) after the trip was over.
Thanks for all the comments above. David I suggest you read the post and comments following.
My former flatmates are not hoteliers. I might be a 56 year old male but I know how to use a washing machine and a dryer if necessary as I’m sure it will be in London.
The bookings were made tentatively about three months ago and and went firm about a month ago when I saw a special on the Air NZ website.
All costs other than the airfare subsidy will be put on my personal credit card. I don’t have any other type.
If you think I am going to report to you on where I eat, how much I drink and which buses I catch you can get stuffed. You have no legitimate interest in that.
As for the meetings. I will have pretty full days. About what most people work. Some of the interesting insights I will blog on. Some because the meetings are private I won’t.
As for the Phil comment. Easy. Phil delegates his overseas leave application approvals. As mine was unremarkable I presume Annie didn’t consult him.
I know its a bit late but to Paul. Would you be happy to pay for the wives and partners of our military personal to be flown out to visit them when they are deployed over seas. Our military personal deploy for longer stints than our MP’s, get paid far less to do so, and often do so in dangerous conditions. However you never see Trevor or any politician recognizing the value of their relationships.
Apparently our military personal are not only required to lay down their lives if called on, they must also lay down their families.
I’ve got an idea, why don’t we turn in to an old style Albania, nobody goes anywhere to do anything or find how others do things, or talk to anybody about anything, that way we can save a lot of money and really advance as a country.
Wow what a stupid argument. No one is advocating no travel. What people do want is consideration.
I am more than happy to see politicians using tax dollars for genuine parliamentary business over sea’s. What annoys me is when I hear them trot out the line that they should have their partners travel paid for because it is too hard on a relationship to be separated. Sorry but financially those politicians are in a far better place to pay for that travel than military personal who deal with the same struggle on a larger scale. Many military personal sacrifice much to save the money to get their families out to meet them.
It is plain insulting when someone on an MP’s wages makes out that I should subsidize their relationship.