KEY POINTS:
Talk about making a rod for their own backs. In 1977, the agency now known as the Remuneration Authority was set up to save our politicians and the judiciary from the unedifying spectacle of having to set their own wages. Soon after, the Governor-General was added to the list.
Then in 2002 came local authority politicians.
But sometimes, you just can't save people from their own silliness. First it was our rich-lister Prime Minister, John Key, writing to the authority saying he didn't want a pay rise this time round and adding, all heart, that nor did any of his colleagues.
Then, not content with "volunteering" his parliamentary colleagues into a pay freeze, Mr Key gave a very unsubtle nudge to the Queen's representative and all her judges as well.
"My understanding is that the Governor-General himself is taking the step of writing to the Remuneration Authority requesting a 0 per cent round, so I'm sure judges and the like will take a similar view."
Not to be outdone, local body politicians are now stupidly starting to repoliticise their wages as well. Don't they realise it can only end in tears?
On Wednesday, North Shore City councillors turned down the authority's proposed 2 per cent pay rise, claiming it "inappropriate". Across at Waitakere City, councillors have deferred a decision until next month, hoping for a clear direction from the remuneration authority as to their legal obligations to take up the offer or not.
I would have thought the letter to all local authorities dated January 28 from Remuneration Authority chairman David Oughton was clear enough. He said he wanted councillors to accept the increase in pay calculated for the 2009/2010 year. He described the average proposed increase of 3 per cent nationwide as "conservative in that it is somewhat less than market information might indicate should be the adjustment".
He added that "we anticipate that survey data this year will not support any significant increase in the pool for 2010/2011".
He went on to argue that "a zero increase from July 1, 2009 could create a situation where a larger, and perhaps less publicly acceptable, adjustment may need to be made from July 1, 2010. Further postponing an adjustment at that time would only serve to exacerbate the problem."
Then he got to the nub of the issue. "The raison d'etre of the Remuneration Authority's role in setting the remuneration of elected representatives and statutory officers is to remove the political responsibility, and associated pressures, from those persons. We must ensure, as far as we can, that this independence from political pressure is maintained."
He concluded that the authority would "consider submissions from any council for other than a full allocation of the pool, where there is unanimity among its elected representatives for this course of action. However, we will be looking for valid reasons to agree to such requests."
It was as good as a call to councillors to keep their nerve despite the spirit-of-Muldoon interventionism starting to waft out of the Beehive.
It's easy for rich men to grandstand, they can afford to, but those that fall for the cheap gesture forget - or weren't around to appreciate - why a level of remuneration approaching a living wage was introduced, not so long ago, for local politicians.
Above all, it was an attempt to liberate local government from the hands of the idle rich, the retired, and those in business or academia able to take the time off.
Whether there's been any improvement in leadership as a result is open to debate. But no one could deny our local councils now better reflect the make-up of the communities they serve.
As far as remuneration goes, the pay being proposed for the 2009/2010 year in, for example, North Shore City, is hardly a king's ransom. Councillors stand to get $58,553; committee chairpersons, $71,490; the deputy mayor, $75,640; and the mayor, with motor car expenses thrown in, $147,780.
It doesn't seem a lot for being at the beck and call of 223,000 citizens, 24 hours a day. But that's beside the point. To save our politicians from cheap talk of only being in it to feather their nests, and to try to encourage a more representative cross-section of candidates, we legislated to depoliticise political wages.
The system might not be perfect, but it's a lot better than it was. Let's keep it that way.
