I wasn’t going to comment on the current row about politicians’ expense accounts, because the money itself doesn’t bother me much. But one aspect of this debate is starting to annoy me.
One word that is being used by politicians and their supporters, far more than usual, is ‘entitlement’. It’s become this week’s buzzword. It’s fine for Roger Douglas and other long-serving ex-MPs to travel around the world first class with their families for almost nothing thanks to taxpayers, because he’s ‘entitled’ to do so. He said so! The rules say so!
Several cabinet ministers gain more taxpayer money in expenses a week to run or rent out their own Wellington places of residence than I get in total each fortnight. But that’s OK – they’re ‘entitled’ to it. John Key said so!
Entitlement to expense payments is not a human right or a gift from above. It is bestowed by laws or agreed rules. Those laws and rules are created by parliament and MPs. So politicians create for themselves their entitlements.
They also create or endorse entitlements for the people whom they govern or represent. That’s the way our western societies work. Our laws and regulations prescribe who is entitled to what, in both the public and private sectors.
Up until very recently, certain beneficiaries have been entitled, according to the rules, to allowances to help fund training for jobs that will get them off their benefit. Now that rule has been changed so these people are no longer ‘entitled’.
Who changed the rules (and without consultation)? The politicians. What was their argument that these payments should no longer be made (and justification for making public the amounts paid to vocal opponents)? That they are not ‘entitled’ to them.
So the logic comes down to these two rules:
1. If you are a politician and set the rules, you make and retain the entitlements that suit you, and you rebuff any criticism by saying you’re ‘entitled’. Your entitlements are set in concrete, and you justify them with hubris.
2. If you’re a citizen who once had a legal entitlement but no longer have it because politicians changed the rules, then your request or argument for continued entitlement is rubbished and criticised because you are ‘not entitled’ to the payment. Your entitlements are subject to the whim and latest ideology of the politicians.
I’m annoyed for two reasons: first, it’s an unfair and hypocritical double standard; second, the politicians think we the public are stupid enough to fall for it. Well I’m not!
* * * * * * * * * * * *
(August 4) Shortly after I posted this article, John Key announced a review of MP’s entitlements, particularly for Wellington accommodation. This is refreshing news. If the amended rules are based on fair recompense for real, unavoidable expenses then I’ll be happy. But I’ll never respect any rule that allows Roger Douglas to swan around the world using my money to support his arrogant self-entitlement.
Well said!