Mileage allowance rates
I can see, with the current high petrol costs, that interest in the mileage allowance rate in the CAs has been rekindled.
So first, a brief history of the origins of the current rate:
It was imported into the Award from the Green Manuals in 1987 and modified at various stages which can be tracked by looking at the Awards, Contracts and Agreements between 1987 and the current time. The table format with kilometers run and engine size for cars existed from 1987 to 1993 when it was replaced by a simple two tier rate of 65 cents and 46 cents per kilometre, depending upon whether the kilometers run on official business were less than 1600 kms or more than 1600 kms. In 1995 when there was a change to rates by 2%, these rates became 66cents and 47 cents. The 1996 contract saw these reduce to 62 cents and 47 cents and the reduction of the top rate had nothing to do with a fall in the price of petrol but was related to the fact that the 66 cent rate breached the IRD reimbursement guideline. Those rates have remained static ever since because there have been no changes to the IRD restrictions on the rate of reimbursement.
62c/km is still the rate published by the IRD that is tax exempt for the first 3000km in any year, dropping to 19c/km for every km over 3000kms. The IRD will also allow employers to use running cost rates published by a reputable authority (such as the AA) as the flash point for deciding the level to which the first 3000km may be paid without PAYE deduction. Thereafter, the 19c/km kicks in meaning every cent reimbursed above that is to be treated as income in the hands of the worker and taxed accordingly. Thus teachers, who may be getting the 47c/km rate per the STCA because their annual mileage exceeds 1600km, are liable to be taxed on every cent above 19 they get once they exceed about 5000km.
Confused, then wait, there’s more. The STCA and the IRD rates apply irrespective of engine size or whether the vehicle is petrol, diesel or battery powered. The AA publishes rates for different engine size bands, with different rates for petrol and diesel driven vehicles. And, the IRD doesn’t really care what the actual running or fuel costs are. All it cares about is the point at which every cent you get becomes taxable! It’s ‘concession’ regarding fuel prices is to allow employers to adopt the AA rates to be used to decide the level of reimbursement that is tax free for that first 3000kms; thereafter, the 19c/km rate kicks in for tax free purposes. If all that is too complicated for hapless employers and workers, the IRD has a flat rate that can be used for any distance of 28c or will even allow individualised flat rates to be worked out; complicated exercises in themselves.
So, the current formula in the CA has a convenience about it as it largely avoids the tax issues. The employer is supposed to know when to start deducting and remitting the tax but if there is failure, the employee becomes liable including possible penalties.
Is this capable of being sorted? Probably not. Business NZ had a go and that led to the concession about freedom to use the AA rates. The PSA has had a go to be told the same.
Is the 62c/km a fair rate? Who knows. It might be a fair average all purpose rate when all the complications and the latest AA rates are taken into account. The 62c/km is a theoretical reimbursement of total vehicle running costs based on a bit of science. Fuel costs were (and may still be) a smallish component of those total costs. For example, say one moved to actual fuel costs for the distance travelled. There would be variation because of different vehicle economy/driving conditions. But let’s say consumption worked out at 8 litres/per 100km for the trip. At $2.009/litre one could claim 16.07/km for that journey. If the journey was more arduous and consumption was 10 l/100km, the claim would become 20.09/km. Therefore, one would have to travel around 10,000 kms before reaching the tax free reimbursement of $1860 (0.62 x 3000). The current 62c/km rate was calculated at a time when fuel relative to other running costs was the highest it had been in 2 decades. They slumped soon afterward and have soared back to those relative heights in the last 6 – 8 months.
Response to: The NZ Teachers Council – by the teachers for the teachers?
Response to: The NZ Teachers Council – by the teachers for the teachers?
There are a number of facts in Max Christopherson’s blog that are clearly incorrect.
It is important to correct them.
Getting the Facts Straight!
1 The Council has 11 members of which 4 are Ministerial appointments.
2. There are 4 elected members:
• a secondary school teacher representative voted for by secondary school teachers
• a primary school teacher representative voted for by primary school teachers
• an early childhood teacher representative voted for by early childhood teachers
• a principal representative voted for by principals
Noting that there are over 89,000 registered teachers with practising certificates, ensuring that all are able to exercise their voting rights will not be cheap!
3. There are 3 representatives nominated respectively by:
• PPTA
• NZEI
• STA
4. Eight of the current Council members are qualified teachers.
5. Each Council member receives exactly the same remuneration and meeting expenses regardless of whether he or she is a Ministerial appointment, a nominated member or an elected member.
6. The employers of those Council members who are in full-time salaried positions are reimbursed to allow these members to be released on Council business.
7. Each Council member, including a teacher, is personally paid a preparation fee for each meeting he or she attends.
8. Council members provide an invaluable service to the profession and work hard and conscientiously to promote teachers and maintain high standards for the profession. Clearly they do this work out of a professional commitment to the teaching profession and not for any personal monetary gain.
Professional Status
9. In the 1990s, compulsory registration was dropped. Both teacher unions – NZEI and PPTA – lobbied strongly for its reinstatement as a protection for the professional status of teachers. Of all the professions, teaching is one of the most vulnerable to exploitation. There are numerous international examples of governments seeking to employ untrained and inappropriately qualified individuals to meet teaching shortages, simply look at examples from the United States.
10. For a brief period, there was an attempt to establish a voluntary professional body for teachers by teachers themselves known as the Teachers’ Council of Aotearoa. Without a statutory framework, this attempt could not be sustained and the organisation collapsed within 3 years.
11. Teachers, the unions and other educators supported the re-establishment of a professional body.
12. The Council represents over 89,000 teachers. It is clearly the largest profession in the country.
13. Teachers pay a $40 per year registration fee. This is the lowest registration fee for any professional body in the country (eg nurses pay $60 per annum). It is also significantly lower than any Australian state, British Columbia, Ontario, England, Wales, Scotland or Ireland to name a few.
Professional Leadership
14. Within 5 years, the Council has completed major pieces of work including:
• establishing a robust registration system
• developing a fair, transparent process for dealing with complaints about teachers’ conduct and competency
• writing standards for graduating teachers in consultation with teachers, unions, employers and teacher educators
• launching a review of the Satisfactory Teacher Dimensions
• completing a series of research projects including a major review of the induction of beginning teachers
• preparing to launch a series of pilots to ensure the highest quality possible for the induction and mentoring of newly qualified teachers
15. For all of this work, the Council has needed to establish a sound infrastructure and effective governance.
For those who would argue that teachers do not need the Council, talk to those who tried to establish the Teachers’ Council of Aotearoa without the support of a statutory framework.
Teaching is an honourable profession that provides a significant public service and most teachers strive to maintain the highest standards possible to promote the learning and welfare of children and young people. Most teachers want to ensure that those who fail to uphold the status of the profession are not permitted to continue to diminish the work of their colleagues. And, on the other hand, teachers need to be protected from unfair allegations by a robust, transparent and fair process to deal with complaints.
Peter Lind
Director of NZTC
Weekend posts
Apologies to anybody who posted over the weekend and did not see their comments appear until this morning. While we are committed to getting your opinion across, our moderating pigeons do sometimes take the weekend off. Please keep on posting though, your feedback is really appreciated and we will endeavour to have as quick a turnover as possible.
Regards,
Winged Rodent
Uncategorized | Comment (0)Welcome to the Pigeonhole
The Pigeonhole is an interactive blog set up by the PPTA as a space for teachers to share ideas and have their say on educational issues
There will be a number of contributors and you are all invited to have your say in the comments section. Topics will range from the latest issues in education to lighthearted and quirky pieces on the world of secondary teachers. We do accept contributions and ideas but they must comply with the PPTA blog guidelines http://wingedrodent.edublogs.org/about/ and will be subject to moderation.
We begin with a critique of Education Minister Chris Carter’s parrotlike stance on school funding from an interview with Radio New Zealand’s Kathryn Ryan, and look forward to your feedback.
Uncategorized | Comment (0)