Editorial: Ministers deserve to fly in comfort

Opinion

According to new rules governing how ministers spend taxpayers' money, that expenditure must be "able to withstand taxpayers' scrutiny". There should not, in other words, be spending on goods or services that could be seen to feather a minister's own nest rather than serve this country's interests. These are highly sensitive times for such matters. The popular outrage in Britain over parliamentarians' spending claimed high-profile scalps, and hardly went unnoticed here. Nor did it help that the departments which look after our politicians emerged largely unscathed from the Government's cost-cutting demands. Perhaps it was little wonder, therefore, that the Prime Minister has been so defensive about his use of first-class flights.

John Key blamed the $96,841 cost of a trip to an Apec meeting in Peru and then to London to meet the Queen on the cost of first-class tickets booked by the previous Government. This, he said, had been standard practice for that Administration. Since that trip, a spokesman said, Mr Key had travelled business class, "and this is his expectation of other ministers". He did not, of course, mention that Air New Zealand has abandoned first class, so its best seats are in business class, or that ministers are routinely upgraded because of their frequent-flyer points. Business class, it seems, is deemed palatable for public scrutiny, albeit that it costs three times as much as economy class on most airlines. The price rise to first-class is more like five times.

This, however, was not a matter Mr Key needed to be coy about. Only the small-minded or those of envious disposition would begrudge our political leaders flying in some degree of comfort. In fact, it is a necessity. Unlike the ordinary traveller, ministers do not have a day to recover after stepping off a long flight. Usually, they are straight into meetings or talking to the local media. It is important for this country's image that they are on top of matters and present themselves well, not as someone who has been through the economy-class wringer.

If those annoyed by the expenses of globe-trotting ministers want a valid target, they should look at the value of some of that travel. Three years ago, two Auckland City councillors were roundly and rightly criticised for a month-long "intellectual capacity-building tour" of Europe and North America. Their study of what successful waterfront and Aotea Square upgrades could involve took them to such irrelevant destinations as a Czech medieval town. It may not be stretching matters far to place the Speaker's Easter tour in the same category. This year, blissfully disregarding the recession, it took place again, with four MPs joining Lockwood Smith on a 10-day tour of Vietnam and Japan. This tour is known as the junket of the year for ordinary MPs. The title says everything about its value. Undoubtedly, many other examples of globe-trotting are not so light on purpose, however. Indeed, it is somewhat surprising that National ministers spent slightly less on travel in their first three months in Government than Labour ministers in the same quarter a year earlier. New ministers need to build relationships with their overseas counterparts and bring themselves up to speed in areas that can benefit this country.

John Key has been keen to acknowledge taxpayer concerns. "I don't want to see ministers travelling around the world for no particular reason," he says. Such trips, as with all aspects of Government spending, should be open to question, and the ability to withstand taxpayer scrutiny is a useful yardstick. But the real test lies in maintaining that watch. Labour ministers' travel bill in their last three months in power comfortably surpassed that of National's first quarter. That must say something.