If we can’t afford to cover school lunches, why are we still paying for MPs’ perks?
OPINION:
“We just can’t afford it right now.” Of all the shitty, heartless things David Seymour said recently, his threats to axe a free school lunch programme were the cruellest.
But it got me thinking. What other things can’t the country afford? How about the bouquets of freshly-cut flowers, replenished weekly around the Parliament building? Heating the complex’s swimming pool for the exclusive use of MPs and parliamentary staff? Or the fluffy towels solely for members’ use in the precinct’s gym?
What about Copperfields, Pickwicks, Bellamys and The Beanhive, the subsidised eateries that are supposed to be cost-neutral, but don’t quite make it?
Then there’s the catering (tea, coffee and bikkies) that accompanies meetings. The free functions, where Parliamentary Service picks up the costs. It seems MPs’ own subsidised lunch programme could bear with some scrutiny.
Perhaps the “regular payment” to MPs for phones and internet for their homes? Then there is the $52 million a year MPs and their parties get to support their work. (By the way, that includes funding some of their social media and ad campaigns.) And what about the $3m a year on office supplies? And then there’s the $3.6m that will go into “inter-parliamentary relations” over the next three years – that’s at least three overseas junkets for MPs.
Speaking of travel, we currently spend around $5m a year on MPs’ travel and just $4m to pay for their accommodation and travel of family members. More than $1m goes towards the travel of former MPs.
If we are running a ruler over detailed costs then it should be recorded that ACT leader Seymour’s own bills last year came out at $76,423, including a noticeable spike in spending in the months leading up to October’s election.
During the final three months of the year, ACT MPs racked up $143,831 in housing and travel bills. Are they looking for savings of 7.5% too?
And since we are talking snouts in troughs, why not go the whole hog and reconsider the entire $22m shelled out for MPs’ salaries and allowances. Is all of that still affordable in today’s economic climate? Particularly when there is a proposal before Speaker Gerry Brownlee for two fewer House sitting weeks each year.
Sure, this is all a cheap shot. But that’s the point, and it is Seymour who is scoring cheap points. His low-rent attacks on those who are least able to defend themselves, the children of the poor, are a modern-day version of “let them eat cake”.
The lunch-snatcher’s assault — and threats to halve the budget — was camouflaged with claims of waste and inefficiency. Politicians often justify their punch-down on beneficiaries by talking about waste, fraud and abuse in welfare programmes. The budget for each lunch is set between $5.56 and $8.62 depending on the age of the child, and the programme feeds 220,000 students.
Seymour also claims there is no hard evidence the scheme improved school attendance or achievement. That’s surprising, because international research suggests the opposite. A United Kingdom study also found a similar programme cut obesity rates in children.
The associate education minister knows he can’t cut the meals: its endurance was a National election promise, and Finance Minister Nicola Willis stepped in to clarify as much.
Rather, Seymour was in search of a headline, dog-whistling at its meanest.
His spiteful comments were made to appeal to the reactionary voter, not achieve a sensible policy outcome. Hungry kids are a sign of trouble at home, depriving them of food won’t ease those problems or reduce the demand for welfare.
But, let’s indulge Seymour and accept that the squeezed budget can’t sustain a healthy meal for needy kids.
I guess that means an expected pay rise for MPs, due in May after a three-month review of remuneration, is off the table too?
Andrea Vance is National Affairs Editor for The Post and Sunday Star-Times.