SOLO parents should be funded - just like those MPs on the two-week Speaker's Junket - so they too can fly to Europe or somewhere warm with good shops and cool museums, to study first-hand the lives of their peers in far flung countries.
They would certainly bring a wealth of first-hand experience to studying how other countries develop welfare policies. And costs would be kept down as none would be taking their spouses with them.
As a nation we seem to be very good at repeating the well-researched mistakes of other countries with a kind of naive "she'll be right" way of waving away any misgivings expressed by those on the receiving end. If those who have to live with the consequences of Government policy got to check out what other countries do, we might be better placed to judge what will work in New Zealand/Aotearoa.
It is worth noting that MPs and solo parents actually have a lot in common. Both are beneficiaries, as the state funds their roles with taxpayer dollars.
Both the Remuneration Authority and Work & Income oversee decisions about entitlements and payments to those supported by taxpayers. It may be a good time to merge these two organisations into one body. MPs spend a lot of time blaming solo parents for not doing their bit, forgetting that they, too, rely on the state to support them. Any pay rises or perks granted to one should also be given to the other.
If Members of Parliament can decide the level of their perks, why not allow solo parents to do this as well? It all comes out of our taxes.
Where are the free flights around the country for solo parents running a campaign to find a suitable partner who will help with the kids? Surely funding this would save taxpayers' money in the long run.
The kind of entertainment allowances provided to our MPs would be very helpful for a solo parent on a blind date with a potential Mr or Mrs Right. Ideally solo parents, like MPs, should be entitled to an office, a paid administrator to manage their affairs, plus meal and taxi chits.
They could, of course, follow the example set by Bill English. A few years ago it was found he had been claiming subsidies for a house he didn't live in while collecting allowances for the one he did live in. He dismissed this as being just a simple misunderstanding - a worrying response from a Minister of Finance. If it had been a solo parent/beneficiary it would have been called a crime because that would fit the stereotype.
The merging of both categories of state-funded beneficiaries would allow for expansion of the 90-day employment law to include MPs. If, after 90 days in office, they were found to have done nothing but wander the corridors of Parliament talking to their smartphones, then they should lose their jobs.
Unelected list MPs should also be shown the door, as they have not applied or been interviewed by taxpayers for the job. Anyone who has filled in the forms will know the degree of questioning required before being entitled to receive a benefit, so why not scrutinise political candidates in the same way?
If the same standard of social justice was applied, any MPs who were later found to have been lying while applying for voter support should, like anyone else in the workforce, lose their place in Parliament.
Terry Sarten is a writer, musician, social worker and life member of the Satirista - feedback, email: tgs@inspire.net.nz