I may be wrong but . . . . I think I can smell that age-old deodorant called Holier Than Thou in the commentary about politicians’ allowances in the UK.
We love to grizzle about politicians, specially about the allowances and perks that they receive. Phrases like ‘snouts in the trough’ frequently pop up. To a degree, is healthy for democracy and nationhood, but we shouldn’t get too indignant about public figures working the system, else we open ourselves up to charges of gross hypocrisy.
Politicians are people. I’m prepared to believe that, with the odd high-ego or power-hungry exception, New Zealand politicians offer themselves for public office because they’re trying to do something positive for their communities and country.
We must also realise that those in national politics work in a rather different world to ours, and over time some appear to have difficulty relating closely with us ordinary folk. This may contribute to them becoming careless about claiming “working” expenses, insensitive to the concerns of voters.
But such carelessness or even disregard for expense claims around grey areas may be nothing more than a reflection of the attitude of a large proportion of us citizens who they represent. To what extent should we expect politicians to be better than us, to be held to a higher standard than ourselves?
I can easily recall numerous occasions over the years when friends, who I would describe as basically honest and caring people, have happily (and sometimes proudly) recounted tales of rorting taxpayer-funded systems.
One bragged of how he had been able to trick ACC into providing ongoing compensation, plus a lump sum for a vehicle, as part of rehabilitation for an injury which was no longer causing any great disability. There was much backslapping and laughter until I noted that it was me who was partly paying for that via the painfully high ACC premium I pay through my accident-free small business. The subject was quickly changed.
And how many of us willingly submit to all the taxes we are legally obliged to pay? Declare every one of those extra little one-off payments we receive in the hand? Much more common are tales of manipulation of facts to enable tax relief, as if this was a civic duty or a natural entitlement of every hard-working citizen. Some people I know even make it one of life’s priorities to avoid whatever tax they can. (And my experience is that these people are often the ones most infuriated by perks gained by others – but that’s another story.)
Other common rorts that some people I know proudly relate include downloading copyright material from the web or copying borrowed DVDs, and the occasional overstatement of insurance claims. These activities seem victimless, but in the end we all pay through higher charges and premiums or the removal of services.
Yes, the use of public money by politicians must be open to reasonable and fair-minded scrutiny, but we all need to be careful about how loudly and publicly we decry minor indiscretions or looseness. Too much hypocrisy can get a bit powerful on the nose.
Posted by David Armstrong 