Earning that reputation V

Every term, Parliament appoints an independent committee to review its spending to see whether we are getting value for money. This term's committee presented its report [PDF] to the House yesterday, in which they made some interesting recommendations, including stopping MPs rorting their housing allowances, and shifting responsibility for determining allowances and expenses to an independent body. They also recommended doing away with the perk of subsidised international airfares for MPs. This is a pure perk with no public benefit - international travel for parliamentary purposes is funded separately - and it simply allows MPs to take overseas holidays on the taxpayer, so doing away with it would save money and end a rort. But there's a catch.

But the report by the parliamentary appropriations review committee also said MPs' salaries should be adjusted by 10 per cent to recognise the loss of the entitlement.

The travel perk costs taxpayers about $600,000 a year. A 10 per cent salary increase for MPs would cost an extra $1.7 million.

Even if we accept that salaries should rise to compensate for the loss of this pure rort - and I do not - I don't see why we should accept them rising by three times the value of that rort. That simply seems to be gouging.

But I guess MPs have to earn that reputation somehow...