Overhaul the spending rules

The gigantic can of worms that was opened last week is still oozing creepy crawlies as MPs and ministers scramble to defend their spending over the last six months.

The biggest 'worm' of all has turned out to be Bill English, who has been living in a house owned by his own family trust, but leasing it back to the Government as an official residence. This means he was claiming almost $1000 per week ($700 in rent and the rest in other expenses) to live in his own home.

He's not the only one - other MPs have also been rumbled renting out one property while being paid to live in another. Understandably, this raised some eyebrows. The PM said he backed his ministers, but admitted a review of the rules might be necessary. Finally, yesterday English relented:

"Mr English said no matter how much he explained the circumstances nothing would change the perception that he had arranged his affairs to get more than other MPs were entitled to and he would pay the money back."

He's right: that's exactly how it looks. I understand the necessity of compensating MPs who live elsewhere in the country for the expense of maintaining a Wellington residence, but why on earth should English - or any other MP - be paid to live in his own house?

English insisted he was 'unaware' he could claim for a lesser amount - as if he was being forced to collect that money against his will.

John Key claims his deputy hasn't lost any credibility over the row, but if our Minister of Finance doesn't know the ins and outs of the parliamentary expense system, we're in trouble here.

Okay, agreeing to pay some of it back does redeem him somewhat, but the fact remains that he attempted to justify himself for five days before backing down under overwhelming public criticism.

Of course, Labour MPs have been just as bad, with former Education Minister Chris Carter's travel bill coming out on top. Apparently he spent a decent chunk of his $82,410 (and that's just in the past six months) on limousine services. I cannot for the life of me understand how he can attempt to justify this.

A friend of mine is a teacher and struggles daily with the lack of funding and resources in her primary school. We watched the news together last night and when Carter's expenditure was detailed her mouth fell open as if she'd been slapped in the face.

And now it turns out there's nothing to stop disgraced former MP Taito Philip Field from continuing to claim travel allowances, even after he's been convicted on a slew of fraud and corruption charges. Because he was an MP prior to 1993 he gets "up to 12 free domestic return air fares a year, along with a 90 percent discount on international travel".

Speaker Lockwood Smith says there's nothing in the rules that prevents an MP receiving these benefits after being convicted of a criminal offence, so he doesn't see how it can be stopped.

What do you mean you don't know how to fix it? You guys are the Government! Fix the rules up so it doesn't happen again.

As far as I can tell whoever drew up the rules on parliamentary expenses is an ass. Clearly they're full of loopholes and designed so that MPs can claim as much as possible in every aspect of their day-to-day lives.

But just because they can, that doesn't mean they should. Today, Key was still bleating that Bill English hadn't broken any rules. That's as may be, but the point is he still had the option not to claim expenses for something he already had - a Wellington home - and he chose to anyway.

MPs are supposed to claim expenses so they can be compensated for the daily inconveniences of a job that admittedly involves long hours, a fair bit of travel and time away from their families. What they're not supposed to do is tick every box and file every receipt, to the point where they are making a profit - especially in the current financial downturn.

It seems when it comes to money, MPs only have a conscience when they've been found out.