Hard News: Moving targets
196 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last
-
Also, I’m a bit pissy at the moment because Ai Weiwei has been paced under house arrest
-
Petra, in reply to
Great news!
On both counts. :)
Though it could go a little further in the second link, re pre-1999 PM perks, I think.
-
For sure, but i'm still impressed, not the type of stance that'll win him any lunch buddies round the Beehive.
-
Petra, in reply to
Opposition parties will probably be more annoyed, I think, as it takes the wind out of their sails. National shouldn't be too upset, as it helps them gain and retain favour in lieu of re-election. Interesting.
-
Dunno, its John Key and Lockwood Smith who are "relaxed" about rules that will allow Pansy Wong to keep a lifetime entitlement to business class travel when she leaves Parliament. At our expense.
That will go down well with the voters on Struggle Street.
-
Much as I deplore what Pansy Wong (and by extension, her husband) has done and think she should get thwown wuffly to the fwoor, the removal of the post-Parliament entitlement reeks of retrospectivity. So because someone has been caught abusing a perk, the contractual basis on which MPs entered Parliament is torn up? Then if it's good enough to apply to our MPs, why not Joe Citizen? Most of us lesser mortals would scream blue murder if we were told by government that we had to, say, pay higher taxes on past income.
-
Phil Lyth, in reply to
100% unadulterated bulldust.
As the unquestioned authority on Parliament, McGee, says "members [of Parliament] are in law neither employees nor self-employed"
No contract so no retrospectivity.
-
Phil. Ok – so they aren’t employees as far as the law goes. But I think you are being selective in your interpretation. Let’s see the full quote:
A member of Parliament holds a statutory office. Members are not (except for certain tax purposes) employees in an employment relationship, nor are they subject to any contractual obligations in regard to their duties.
…
Taxation
While members are in law neither employees nor self-employed, for tax purposes they are treated as employees and income tax is deducted from their salaries at source. [152] They cannot claim tax deductions for expenses as if they were self-employed. [153] Expenses paid to members for travel, accommodation, attendance and communications services are exempt from income tax if they are determined by the Speaker (for members) and the Minister for Ministerial Services (for Ministers) [154] but fringe benefit tax is payable on any element of personal benefit involved in such expenses. [155]The section you cite is about taxation. Umm ok. Minor detail.
The “contract” in the first quote refered to is an employment contract.
MPs are not subject to an employment contract. The contract I refer to is more akin to a contract between two parties in exchange for services. Like a builder and a homeowner. Or between two businesses.
So you are saying that the implied contract of “I will be an MP” in exchange “I will receive the entitlements of an MP” does not exist?
[edited to remove a non sequitur]
-
And by implication you are saying that holders of statutory offices did not enter into a contract.
Correct, 100% correct, in relation to Parliament.
Suppose a person stands for Parliament, becomes an MP, and then the Remuneration Authority produces a determination halving MPs' salaries, there is not a damn thing the MP can do. They cannot sue.
So the Association of Former MPs is on non-existent ice when claiming they have some sort of guarantee of continuation of travel perks.
-
Dismal Soyanz, in reply to
Sure. And I make no excuses for Kelly. Never had much time for him when he was sitting on his bum in the House, as opposed to sitting on his bum in his house.
But it seems that there is expressly no contractual salary-duties relationship for MPs because it was too hard to say what exactly an MP needs to do to fulfill his/her duties as an MP. Not my focus here.
Besides, the cutting of salaries is an example of the here and and now. The proper analogy to draw here would be to say that the RA has the ability to retroactively cut MPs salaries. I sincerely doubt that it has.
-
No contract so no retrospectivity.
What about Residuals ?
Think how much the Muldoon and Lange estates could be making from those "snap election "and "uranium breath" clips... -
nzlemming, in reply to
The section you cite is about taxation. Umm ok. Minor detail.
The “contract” in the first quote refered to is an employment contract.Your reading is flawed, I think.
A member of Parliament holds a statutory office. Members are not (except for certain tax purposes) employees in an employment relationship, nor are they subject to any contractual obligations in regard to their duties.
This says that the only time that members are considered in anything vaguely resembling an employment relationship is for tax purposes and, even then, it’s a very limited consideration. If there are no “contractual obligations” then there is no contract, not even an implied one. First year law.
No one is talking about retroactively cutting salaries. You raise a classic strawman here. Phil says:
Suppose a person stands for Parliament, becomes an MP, and then the Remuneration Authority produces a determination halving MPs’ salaries, there is not a damn thing the MP can do. They cannot sue.
Nothing retroactive there, and yes – the RA has exactly the authority it needs to do that. They just never have before, so it’s fair to say it’s unlikely that they will. But they can and, if you think otherwise, you have not understood how they work. I recommend you to this.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Dunno, its John Key and Lockwood Smith who are “relaxed” about rules that will allow Pansy Wong to keep a lifetime entitlement to business class travel when she leaves Parliament.
With all due respect, Phil, there's plenty of evidence that opposition parties have been positively sedated about the status quo. While its the Speaker who makes the final call, they've never been made without a lot of cross-party consultation. I'm not seeing any evidence that any opposition leader has been putting the hard word on their former colleagues who've been happily taking their entitlements.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Perhaps, but it doesn't invalidate Phil's point.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Suppose a person stands for Parliament, becomes an MP, and then the Remuneration Authority produces a determination halving MPs’ salaries, there is not a damn thing the MP can do. They cannot sue.
Well, actually there is a pretty frigging big "something" they can do -- amend or repeal the Remuneration Authority Act 1977. Honestly, I find it rather disingenuous of MPs to pretend that they're hapless victims of a body whose role and powers are strictly delimited by legislation.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
No, snidely bitching the Speaker is really missing the point. While its politically useful for various parties to pretend this has nothing to do with them, it's just bullshit and needs to be called out.
-
The need for fisking of media bullshittery is also alive and well in the US.
On Nov. 4, Anderson Cooper did the country a favor. He expertly deconstructed on his CNN show the bogus rumor that President Obama’s trip to Asia would cost $200 million a day. This was an important “story.” It underscored just how far ahead of his time Mark Twain was when he said a century before the Internet, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” But it also showed that there is an antidote to malicious journalism — and that’s good journalism.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
No, no, snidely bitching the Speaker is a national sport. Didn't you get the memo?
You're right that they all play this game but that doesn't mean you can't bitch the incumbents. Were it a Labour govt, you'd be doing just as much bitching (oh, yes you would - if you're going to decry hypocrisy, like charity you start at home). We all bitch the ones we're opposed to - the trick is to be consistent.
Phil's talking about Pansy Wong's screwup - so he's bitching out the incumbents who have indeed seemed quite relaxed (Smith more than Key, I'll grant you) about her transgressions, and Key only started to tense up when he realised that public sentiment was not with Wong, or any MP, on this.
Please stop making out that everyone's a hypocrite excpet you. It really doesn't add to the discussion.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
You know what pisses me off? I'm defending a politician.
Fuck.
There are depths I never thought I'd sink to and yet here we are.
-
Dismal Soyanz, in reply to
No contractual obligations regarding their duties is what McGee is about. They cannot sue for a contractual obligation on the basis that they have fulfilled their duties as an MP in return for a salary. I agree on that.
What I am saying the contract is just simply about being an MP. They can be absolutely crap and do nothing. The only thing they need to do is breath and still be an MP and they have fulfilled their contract to be an MP.
Sorry but I have to disagree about cutting salaries being a strawman. The removal of the post-parliament travel entitlement is about removing a perk that was granted in history. The RA has the authority to cut the current salary of an MP. It cannot retroactively cut the salary and demand the MP pays it back.
But more importantly, the perks are not set by the RA but by the Speaker. So to use the legislated non contractual RA-salary relationship as a reason why the perk cannot have a contractual basis is a strawman.
-
Maybe it’s just late and my brain is tired, but I’m confused.
If the RA is changed so as to disallow pre-1999 ex-MP’s from continuing to claim travel perks from, say, this day forward, how is that retroactively cutting salaries? And what are they having to pay back? Because all I can see, is that something that they used to have is stopped at some arbitrary future date – maybe April 1st 2011, or something. It’s just cut off, it’s not retroactive, and nothing to “pay back”.
What am I missing here?
-
Petra, in reply to
You, Sir, have no shame!
But I’ll share this with you, anyway. I’m good like that.
-
Dismal Soyanz, in reply to
lol.
yeah confusing.
The RA sets MPs salaries but it doesn't set their post-retirement travel entitlement. It has no say on this perk.
What Phil and nzlemming are saying is that there is no contractual relationship between MPs and Parliament, therefore the Speaker can arbitrarily remove the travel perk.
I am arguing that the "no contract" applies to the salary because it is explicitly legislated so but that as there is no legislation that says there is no contract between the Speaker and MPs on the travel perks there is an implied contract. Therefore if the Speaker were to remove the perk he would be effectively removing a perk that had been contracted when the MP entered Parliament some time ago.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
The RA has the authority to cut the current salary of an MP. It cannot retroactively cut the salary and demand the MP pays it back.
No-one said it did. You are the only person who has raised this as a concept for discussion. You are correct - the RA is irrelevant with regard to perks. So why are you even talking about it?
But you are claiming that MPs are entitled to historic perks because of some contractual relationship that only you can see. In small concise words: THERE IS NO CONTRACT This has been stated by people who are paid to know these things (cf McGee) yet your opinion is held (by you) to trump their considerations.
You are either a fool or are working by a strategy of talking absolute shit until everyone gets tired of you and walks away, whereupon you claim victory.
Done with you, sir, that I am.
-
FWIW - I would like to underline the subtle point that Geoff made earlier.
my university gives me a lump sum every three years, which allows for around one overseas conference a year. Some of my colleagues regard such funding as a right; I regard it as a privilege (I know many school teachers who would benefit from such opportunities).
We do need to justify such funding in terms of delivering conference papers and subsequent publication but it is certainly a great aspect of academic life.I occupy much the same role as Geoff in a different institution - I don’t get a lump sum. I do get to apply for conference travel from a fixed fund set at the start of the year. Successful applications are determined entirely on the basis of their value to my institution. Over promising and under-delivering by applicants is viewed very poorly indeed these days.
My point (in the spirit of Russ's own view), is that I too see no problem with travel overseas and the associated benefits to NZ. However in a culture where responsible intent/behaviour cannot be assumed, then suitable audit procedures should be applied. Therefore I see it as entirely fair to fix the parliamentary travel fund and require both current and past MP's to justify why they should be allowed to draw from it.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.