While the Government's aversion to increasing MPs' resources continues, there is a broader debate to be had about what a funding squeeze means for their staffers who are already in difficult positions, Sam Sachdeva writes
Analysis: A world where Jacinda Ardern is more tight-fisted than David Seymour when it comes to spending taxpayer money might seem like something out of The Twilight Zone – but such are the realities of governing during a cost of living crisis sparked by sky-high inflation.
Even in a "normal" political environment, the latest report from the appropriations review committee – complete with recommendations totalling about $6 million in additional annual funding for MPs – was unlikely to be welcomed with open arms by the Government.
Ever since the committee's inaugural report 20 years ago, there has been a tension between its inevitable recommendations of additional funding and the palatability of such increases to politicians wary of being accused of self-interest.
In 2002, committee members noted they had been "influenced by the current climate of fiscal constraint across all public sector spending", a sentiment echoed in the 2022 committee's talk of “a modest adjustment reflecting the current economic and fiscal conditions”.
The purpose of the reviews, at least in theory, is to provide an independent assessment of gaps in the system without requiring politicians to determine how much they should be giving themselves.
But in reality, and as with pay decisions through the Remuneration Authority, parliaments have shown a willingness to step in when they sense a large hike could put them offside with the public.
The committee's last report in 2018, with a more extravagant pitch for $13m in extra annual funding, was swiftly knocked down by the Government shortly after its release, with Chris Hipkins proclaiming it "dead in the water".
The latest edition has received similarly short shrift: while ACT's leader said he supported the proposed increase to MP funding on the (quite reasonable) grounds of inflationary pressure, Labour has flatly stated that "now [is] not the time for funding increases", a broad position that at its most extreme could mean none of the committee's proposals are adopted.
'Innovations' stretching staffers
That is an understandable position given the Government is already being hammered for a supposedly spendthrift approach to public finances, while MPs are hardly sympathetic figures to the wider public given their high pay and various perks – but it is the staffers working underneath them who may be worst affected by tight purse strings.
The report lists a range of "innovations" being used to improve efficiency, such as 'sharing' staff between MPs' offices and hiring staff with both generalist and specific skills, which must be placing more pressure on employees in what is already a difficult working environment.
Indeed, ousted Labour MP turned independent Dr Gaurav Sharma has cited alleged problems with a shared employee as among the grievances he has with the party and the Parliamentary Service.
The Sharma saga in fact adds to the committee's case for change in some areas, such as $500,000 in triennial funding to the Parliamentary Education Trust to provide "targeted development" to MPs separate from that offered by the Office of the Clerk and the Parliamentary Service.
The report noted "a strong common theme that some independence from the Parliamentary Service and the parliamentary environment would make it more likely for MPs to engage in development opportunities", and the Hamilton West MP's claims about bias within the organisation – while yet to be meaningfully substantiated – could feed into that sentiment.
The role of relationship managers, who act as a conduit between MPs, staff, and the Parliamentary Service, has also come under scrutiny after Sharma claimed (again without documentary evidence) his relationship manager was biased against him.
Just as there is a tension between spending proposals and political attitudes, so too does the desire for greater support for MPs rub up against an opposition from some to ceding too much control to faceless bureaucrats.
The report notes the potential for a conflict of interest "where performance issues arise or where there is a breakdown in relationship between the MP and staff member", and says relationship managers appear to be "stretched" more generally in their work.
Seymour took aim against a suggestion MPs be allowed to delegate responsibility for managing electorate and community offices to the Parliamentary Service, suggesting that anyone who was incapable of negotiating a lease was not fit to represent their constituents.
At face value, that argument has a certain appeal – but the committee's counterpoint that not every MP has property management skills is a reasonable one, and a protracted hunt for suitable premises doesn't feel like the best use of a politician's time.
MPs shouldn't need their hand held in perpetuity, but given the increasingly broad skill set they are expected to have, it feels churlish to begrudge support going to those who need it.
The alternative could be semi-regular and preventable explosions from disgruntled MPs, coupled with a further narrowing of the political intake to staffers who are already well versed in navigating the system. That, as much as funding deficits, could prove damaging for our democracy.
