Claire Trevett: Travel discounts start to look like excess baggage

Speaker Lockwood Smith described the discounts as an 'elegant system' and important for democracy. Photo / Mark Mitchell

The trouble with being on a high horse is that there comes a time when you can't quite reach the stirrups.

So members of Parliament have found that in times when they are begrudging teachers free flu jabs, their international jaunts aren't such a good look.

And so poor Speaker Lockwood Smith discovered yesterday when Prime Minister John Key called on him to abolish the taxpayer-funded discounts for international travel.

Just a fortnight ago Dr Smith steadfastly defended the perk against increasing public derision, saying MPs had already paid for it out of their own salaries. He described it as an "elegant system" and important for democracy.

His defence appears to have come to naught.

Mr Key clearly decided the tipping point was reached with Pansy Wong's resignation over her husband's use of the perk.

He made his decision and said the perk had "outlived its usefulness".

However the Speaker issued two warnings when defending the perk, which could come back to bite the Prime Minister.

The first was that the Remuneration Authority, which has accounted for the perk by giving MPs lower salaries since 2003, would almost be compelled to increase salaries to compensate for it.

He argued it was cheaper for the taxpayer to pay for a perk that MPs were too scared to use than to fund a $10,000 increase to MPs' salaries.

The second point was that it would not be long before MPs wanted another fund to allow them to travel overseas for more limited parliamentary reasons, such as international conferences and network building.

The review by former Speaker Sir Doug Kidd proposed such a fund and many MPs do use their discounts for work overseas.

Labour's Phil Goff recently used his 90 per cent rebate to travel to Australia to meet Julia Gillard and other ministers.

The Speaker's warnings amounted to a "be careful what you wish for".

The Remuneration Authority's main concern is sticking to the legislation that governs how it must decide on pay increases. There is a precedent - in 2003, MPs' salaries went from $90,500 to $110,000 - $18,300 of which was to compensate for three allowances which were dismantled that year.

In previous years, the authority has shown concern about wages for comparative jobs in the public and private sectors outstripping those of MPs, making the job less attractive for quality candidates.

Last year it granted MPs' wishes for a pay freeze at a time when that applied to many others in the public sector. This year they might not be so lucky - and a $10,000 allowance top-up as well as an ordinary pay increase will not be a good look.

Mr Key is right when he says although they are powerless to stop the Remuneration Authority, it is the politicians who wear the dirt for its decisions. He will be hoping it is a short-lived, one-off blow - rather than the prolonged trauma the use of the perk has subjected MPs to.

But his approach is the right one. There is no need to wait to get rid of the holiday perk. MPs gave themselves the perk, now they can do themselves a favour by getting rid of it.

Lockwood might want to consider getting off that high horse and instead taking a bull by its horns.