MPs' spending - lessons from abroad

The MPs' expenses scandal going on in Britain has a slight whiff of deja vu about it - and it raises questions about the continuing secrecy that surrounds Parliamentary administration here.

Seems some of the MPs over there have been changing nominally their primary place of residence in order to maximise their parliamentary expenses.

And that takes us back to 2001 in New Zealand when ministers Phillida Bunkle and Marian Hobbs were put through the wringer over their accommodation allowances. They were both registers as Wellington residents on the electoral roll in Wellington Central where they had contested the 1999 election but were both receiving out-of-towners accommodation allowances. Wellington residents for some purposes but not for others.

The Auditor-General cleared them of wrong-doing and said concluded both had acted reasonably on advice from parliamentary officials.

Hobbs repaid $18,540 even though she didn't have to because she did not want to be considered "a cheat."

The accommodation allowance is only part of the story that the Daily Telegraph has uncovered through obtaining confidential and detailed information on some of the expenses claims made over there, including taxpayer-funded tampons and tax-payer funded horse manure! Apparently most of it is in the rules.

It is a cross-party scandal that touches even Prime Minister Gordon Brown who authorised payments over the odds to his brother for clearing three MPs' flats.

The Observer's chief political commentator Andrew Rawnsley has summed it up:

"Under John Major, it was cash for questions as backbenchers took money for asking questions in Parliament.

Under Tony Blair, it was cash for coronets, as big party donors were rewarded with seats in the House of Lords.

Under Gordon Brown, we reach the suitably pathetic nadir of cash for cleaners.

And cash for lavatories. And cash for carpets. And cash for saunas. And cash for swimming pools. And cash for gardeners. And cash for barbecues. And cash for dog food. And cash for cushions. Silk ones, naturally, 17 of them in all to ease the repose of Keith Vaz.

In the case of a Conservative MP with a constituency in the shires, it is cash for horse manure. One MP wants cash for Kit Kats. A Scottish Labour MP confirms the stereotype of his race by claiming 5p for a carrier bag. Well, he probably needed somewhere to stuff all his receipts...."

Harriet Harman has been shoved before the cameras to try to defend the indefensible. She bleats that it was "all within the rules" as if the rules were not of Parliament's own invention, but had been handed down by God to Moses on Mount Sinai.

Politicians are further stripped of any moral authority to guide the country. How can they now talk about the disgraceful behaviour of bankers or demand sacrifices from voters to cope with the recession?

It will be in character if Brown tries to reassure his colleagues that the expenses furore is a passing froth, an essentially trivial story in the grand sweep of things. Yet sometimes it is the superficially trivial that conveys a significant truth about political decay."

The level of disgust in Britain can almost be felt from here - more so because so much of the spending was within the rules.

The issue of MPs' expenses has gained ground in the UK ever since MPs failed to get themselves excluded from the Freedom of Information law.

That brings us back to New Zealand.

The New Zealand Parliament has exempted itself from the Official Information Act. MPs promote a culture of secrecy around their own expenses that they do not tolerate in any other sector of state expenditure.

I cannot believe that New Zealand MPs' expenses would extend to cleaners, gardeners, horse manure or tampons. But I've only got their word for it.

The secrecy (they call it privacy) extends beyond the bizarre. For example, I am not allowed to see the tax-payer funded advertising material approved by Parliamentary Service for any MP in any part of election year. (Yes, under revised spending rules MPs can and do get the taxpayer to fund part of their campaigns - just like Labour's old pledge card - and think that declaring it makes it okay.)

Unless the MP shows it to me, I have no right to see it.

The secrecy extends to other areas of the running of Parliament - not just spending decisions. Lockwood Smith, who has been doing a great job as Speaker in the House, has refused to release the names of the Wellington lobbyists who have access cards to Parliament. Apparently their privacy is paramount.

I don't mind the very active and reputable lobbyists having an access card to Parliament.

But I do object to secrecy being the default position in this place.

Audrey Young