Editorial: PM right to act fast on rental perks

The Prime Minister is commendably quick to order a review of ministers' accommodation grants after the disclosure that some have gone to unseemly trouble to maximise their income. The transition from ordinary MP to honourable minister turns out to be lucrative in more ways than a substantial salary jump. If the minister happened to have owned the apartment he or she used for the few nights a week that MPs need to stay in Wellington, the new minister is on a very good wicket. He or she will be given a proper house provided by a grateful nation, and can rent out the previous lodgings, possibly to another MP.

There can be no argument with the provision of a house, particularly for those with partners and children at home, for a minister needs to spend more of the week in the capital. If they have already made ample provision for themselves or their families in Wellington, they nevertheless qualify for a larger accommodation grant on becoming a minister.

Sadly, they have been taking that money whether they need it or not. If they have to move house to qualify for it, they have been prepared to do so, renting out their own house into the bargain.

These arrangements have probably been common practice for as long as anyone in Parliament can remember. They have come to light now because the recent expenses scandal in Britain has forced greater disclosure from other parliaments. It is a pity it should have taken public exposure to awaken the Prime Minister and his Cabinet to the hypocrisy of their private arrangements.

They have come to office on a promise to wring waste out of the public service and they have inherited a ballooning budget deficit which will require savings to be found in state spending wherever possible. They have already curtailed a training grant for domestic purposes beneficiaries and the Social Development Minister has revealed the level of income support received by two sole parents to show they should not have needed the additional grant.

Need is the criterion that has to be applied to public spending at all times but particularly at present. Perhaps it occurred to those with their hand out for ministerial house rent that their claim on the taxpayer would not stand a test of need. Perhaps that is why Parliament's Speaker was reluctant to release its members' expenses in the wake of the British embarrassments.

Or, more charitably, might we suppose that new ministers were simply too busy to notice they were not exactly practising the economies they preached? They are merely heirs to a long tradition. Labour Governments have been as keen as National to award ministers generous accommodation, including Wellington waterfront apartments.

Too many people are ever-ready to think the worst of politicians and they will ensure we never hear the end of this sort of extravagance. Not many will work out that the taxpayer will gain little if ministers from out of Wellington are penalised for owning a house there. They will simply sell the house, live in one that is rented for them and probably buy an investment home in a better location.

But at least public opprobrium would be reduced, ministers would be perceived to be acting from need not greed and the line between public and private income would be more clearly drawn.

As things stand the taxpayer appears to be doubly subsidising private income, particularly where MPs' rent is paid for an apartment owned by a minister renting elsewhere.

John Key has many more important problems on his plate but this one needs to be fixed. Good example matters.