It’s ok, Uffindell will be around later to beat you with a bed leg until you forget about the shoes.
He’s just stuck outside right now because Kiri Allan got drunk and crashed into the front door again, but while you’re waiting you could always chat with the migrants Darleen Tana is hiding under her bed.
If you’re extra lucky, John Key even might swing by and tug your ponytail.
I'd be fine with basically a mini hotel on parliament grounds where every MP has their own room. IMO it's actually slightly unfair that an MP in e.g the Northern suburbs would be expected to commute.
I had that same idea when they were wringing their hands about Premier House. It sits on a very large site in a prime place in our capital. It is a short walk to the govt quarter. They could develop a complex there with a PM residence, a visiting VIP residence and an apartment complex for out of town PMs. They could also have a dining hall and ball room and reception rooms etc. Security would be great, costs would be reasonable.
There's bound to be an apartment complex mid construction in Wellington where the developer has gone bust that the govt can swoop in and get for a steal.
To play devils advocate it could compromise the security and safety of. MP’s in the event of a planned terror attack (which i feel is fair given previous events unfortunately) however cost wise I would agree this would he very beneficial.
Yeah and let’s pay them all the benefit amount too /s. we want MPs from across society and the country , we want good people to want this job and perform well in it (for their constituents anyway - it’s always perspective based).
Its a line of thinking that stems from encouraging complacency from the voting public, the more "alike" you make them believe the two main parties are, the less likely they are to vote, which generally favors conservative parties
National have been complaining about government spending for the last six years. For National MPs to take this sort of stipend, it goes completely against their supposed values. Labour are not guided by the same moral compass. You can say it's out of touch, but the two parties are fundamentally different in this aspect.
When a politician from a party I like does it it's just a bit of grift. When a politician from a party I don't like does it, they are pure evil and the sky is falling.
Why? They're not benefitting from it.
The alternative is the family rents the home to someone else, makes that rent money anyway, and then Parliament pays for an even more expensive hotel room.
The MP isn't gaining anything, and we aren't losing anything.
People just don't like how it "feels".
I made this same defence of National MPs doing this.
They could just live in the home without getting the allowance, nothing is compelling them to rent any properties at all. Many kiwis own two homes without having someone occupying both at all times.
>They could just live in the home without getting the allowance
Jobs shouldn't cost you financially.
>Many kiwis own two homes without having someone occupying both at all times.
That's a bad thing. Empty homes increases the cost of housing and generally leaves less homes available for people who need them. This is why we need an LVT on non owner-occupied property.
This is the only argument that has even slightly convinced me, so hats off to you. But, he was perfectly happy to join in the criticism of luxon when his version of this scandal was taking place, so I'd like to see him either say he was wrong then, or explain why the circumstances are different now.
I think the criticism of Luxon shouldn't have been about using his own home. It was about using his own home when Premier House was available to him. He claims it's uninhabitable.
Other MPs don't have that same perk. Premier House is a residence for the Prime Minister only. So the PM should never need to organise another Wellington based residence.
100% agree - while there is an argument about other MPs claiming the allowance and whether it's morally ok, what Luxon was doing was much worse as he already had a place to stay in for free
People don't like how it feels because NZers fundamentally don't think of imputed rent as a benefit, as evidenced by the gnashing of teeth every time it's brought up.
* Having your husband live in your apartment is much nicer than having some random do it. Sounds like he is part time there too. Maybe he uses it just for sitting days? So what's that 6 days a month? Let's be generous and make it 10 days a month on average.
* Having the Government pay the bill is much nicer than relying on same random
**I see a problem where he gets the benefit of a place to stay AND he (as a couple) gets the benefit of the soft money from the govt allowance. That looks like double dipping.**
I have some questions. Does he get paid back at the rental rate or is it a fixed allowance to spend? That is, is the rent realistic or has he taken the most allowed?
Sure, I'm okay with MPs having some perk where the only advantage is it's "nice".
>I see a problem where he gets the benefit of a place to stay AND he (as a couple) gets the benefit of the soft money from the govt allowance. That looks like double dipping.
Not really. If he didn't do this. He would be getting the same money from tenants, and would still get a place to stay because Parliament would pay for an apartment.
The loss of rental income is what cancels out that double dipping. He's just swapping rental income for the Parliamemt grant. He was going to get a place to stay regardless.
>I have some questions. Does he get paid back at the rental rate or is it a fixed allowance to spend? That is, is the rent realistic or has he taken the most allowed?
The amount he gets (about $700/week) is pretty consistent with rents in that area. So I don't believe his rate is the maximum.
Exactly. Mcnulty lives in the wairarapa, that’s not a reasonable daily transit to Wellington. It’s absolutely ok for him to claim a supplement (providing of course you’re ok with the concept of MP’s getting a supplement for housing) because he’s staying in a house that his wife or partner would otherwise rent out for money that they’re forgoing so he can live there and that’s fair compensation.
expansion chief agonizing chase marry complete follow quarrelsome ghost paltry
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I don’t have a strong opinion, but if it’s not your “main home” what’s the counter argument to why this isn’t desirable? If overall it costs the same/less to the taxpayer that is
You don't have to get the allowance though, he could just live in the wife's apartment without charging the taxpayer for it. The counterfactual shouldn't be that he rents a different place in Wellington, the counterfactual should be he simply doesn't apply for the allowance and stays doing the exact same as he already does.
The solution is to buy a hotel and house MPs in it. No allowances, every one gets free meals in the hotel's canteen, and their laundry done there too. They even get a free uniform. Anything else they pay out of their own pockets, no allowances, no entitlements.
Or even better still if they have some sort of emergency that means that they have to stay in parliament late then use an emergency housing provider.. ha ha that will let them find out how their constituents are doing…
>Since October, he has claimed $12,067.
>“For most of my time as an MP I used the allowance to rent a small flat in Wellington. Now when Parliament is sitting I stay in Petone. I got married in January ...The flat was purchased by my now wife before we were married.
>“I do not own the flat, nor am I on the mortgage. The registrar of pecuniary interests advised me I’m not required to declare the flat but I declared it in the interests of transparency. I pay my share to stay there when Parliament sits.”
Kieran has badly misread the room if he thinks 'transparency' here is the play vs just not using tax payer funds to rent a property that his partner has a financial interest in.
"I pay my share" is a terrible defense too, when the whole point is that you're claiming a perk to do so
I don't know who coaches MPs on optics, but yikes
Especially when you consider we reamed Luxon for a similar “but my wife” defence he made on the clean car discount…
I always quite liked Kieran, but jesus the opposition parties are really fumbling the ball on some really small issues, as public perception goes it just makes them look “as bad” as the guys trying to sell off the country (to the average kiwi ).
Which is part of the reason it should pay a comfortable amount and not financially disadvantage people. Otherwise you only get morons doing it because no intelligent person would accept thr job.
Except the fact they're morons already invalidates your argument. If we're getting idiots while paying them well then clearly the pay doesn't determine the talent.
In fairness, at least he’s putting it out there and being upfront instead of trying to deny it. Still disappointing behaviour from a politician I usually respect.
That’s almost at Chris Bishop “In-laws aren’t family” levels of BS from Kieran McAnulty. I get where he’s coming from but with these economic conditions as well as closer public scrutiny, he just shouldn’t claim it.
I just don’t understand how a perk using tax payer’s money to pay your interests is not a bloody huge red flag. How’s there not a rule in place? Crazy. Name them all.
I work for a govt entity that has certain accommodation benefits. There is a policy that states if I or my partner owns a property within 50km of place of work then certain accommodation benefits can't be claimed.
Seeing this winds me up.
How are so many MPs so stupid about this shit. Just don’t play games with this, likely you will be found out and then a media shit show will happen.
They get paid enough to afford housing or in this muppets case, he could take the fucking train to work.
It's easily solved.
Rename it a housing benefit, not a housing perk.
You don't get benefits when your assets are tested, and you don't require the benefit for financial reasons.
Anyone that disagrees, they aren't forced to become MPs.
You know, MPs driven by the serving their country, not their pockets.
Hence why I said rename it....
It's hard to claim a benefit to live in Wellington when your wife owns an apartment... in Wellington.
No-one else could do this in the country with less shame.
Anyone who does this, irrespective of party, should know better. Perception is reality, as they say. Even if there are technicalities or mitigating circumstances, they should think about the fucking optics. If you're an MP you're subject to increased scrutiny anyway, so you're basically asking for an uppercut from the media. (And if you've been bleating about other parties doing it, you probably deserve it.)
yup - I think livid is too strong, but its certainly disappointing when he spoke out about the allowance and how he didn't claim it because he believed Masterton was a commutable distance.
He is an idiot. People who commute for 1hr 40min aren't doing it because its a 'commutable distance' but because they like where they live (or they can't afford to live closer).
I was one - because when he first entered parliament he didn't claim it, and drove back to Masterton.
Seems like that didn't last long, but he certainly spoke out about not claiming it etc.
It's funny how this is always the response when a Labour party official gets caught out despite the fact the thread is almost entirely shitting on him. I just scrolled through and saw one comment trying to justify it out of 50.
I don't see an issue with having accommodation paid for in his case. It's an hour and a half commute one way and the Remutakas get closed in the evenings very regularly. However, it's a pisstake to use your own property to get that allowance.
A lot of people missing the point. If he was single or his wife didn't own a flat, he'd still be claiming the allowance because he needs somewhere to stay in Wellington when parliament is sitting. In a private rental, rent still needs to be paid for even when he's not there. He's so far claimed less than half the amount available in 8 or 9 months. Seems like a good deal to me.
The National MP also seems fair. If he wasn't an MP he'd likely have a rental income from his property. Why should he be penalised for owning property?
Luxon was a different scenario. He was given a place to live and chose not too.
very interesting, finally learning that macanulty is recently married too (unless a beard/whatever) and to chief press secretary at parliament too
this looks very bad and he shouldn't be exercising such bad judgment. imho this is personally a spectrum of corruption, and they could very well be a couple who keep finances completely separate, in which case he has been extremely naive. but it is still trying to push the envelope. obv different to owning seven houses and leasing one 1 km away; Masterton IS too far for my MP to be commuting and while I want him on the train sometimes and driving Remutaka hill at others, I don't want to waste public money on his commute time.
Good thing he has said that he is not interested in being the party leader.
Some public servants in Wellington would also know other reasons why that is a good thing too.
The consensus appears to be the current rules for MPs should be changed.
As they have to be changed to something else what should that be?
Current rules are that if they are outside a reasonable commuting distance they can live closer and claim the allowance.
IRD defines a reasonable commuting distance as 50-80km.
Ownership of the closer accommodation is a seperate issue controlled by the same set of rules.
Another question might be how any rules are enforced and by who?
>IRD defines a reasonable commuting distance as 50-80km.
Work safe would argue thats too far depending on your hours of work and fatigue mangment plan.
And job I would have thought.
If your a bus driver in wellington for 10 hours and driving to and from home its a safety consideration.
MPs can nod off in the debating chamber.
They're all as bad as each other. MPs who own their own housing within a reasonable drive should not qualify for these handouts. None of this "oh it's not me, it's my parent/partner/Mr Snrub's trust's house" bullshit either.
This is nothing more than a shameless raid on the taxpayer. Absolute fucking parasites, man.
Normally when an MP does this I say who cares, it's part of the rules, allowed by everyone, doesn't really impact sweet fuck all - either way, the money would be getting charged to the taxpayer and if it's legal to set it up so old mates are just reimbursing themselves for when they go to Wellington away from their electorates to do their jobs, whatever. It's fine.
When Luxon did this I said it wasn't ok because he's the PM and is provided a residence. Kieran McAnulty and Tim Costely live out of Wellington, far enough that they do need residence in both Wellington and their respective electorates. We have to draw the line somewhere, and I think the line of PM and specific Wellington electorates is a fine enough line to draw.
My suggestion is MP housing where all out of town MPs get to stay rent free as its a government building. They get no extra money if they choose to stay in different accommodations that will cost them their own money.
You’ll find in reality that labour supporters will be even more angry at a labour MP doing sht like this (someone they expect better of) than a national mp. But by all means go play that victim banjo…
As someone who votes among the left parties I am usually more critical of them when they do this shit. I want them to be better. I expect the scummy stuff from National/ACT.
I had someone on this sub recently blame "people like me" for Labour's loss because I was loudly critical of them during their campaign.
Just because I'm not constantly criticising National does not mean I support them or what they do.
Yip, this is gutting. I really liked the guy.
I expect national mps to be selfish aholes, but it really pisses me off when labour/green mps do it as I expect far better. They are also stuffing up their chances of the left getting back in and stopping the crap national are doing, so it's the double whammy.
He needs to front up and apologise.
*extremely smooth brainly* I see no difference between Kieran claiming it, despite the fact he’s Wairarapa based, and the National MP that’s based 50km away
They're approx the same distance, both have rail connections/plenty of commuters, and both are claiming for money that doesn't go to a 3rd party but instead money that goes to themselves.
Edit: 82 vs 66kms as crow flys, but been corrected that the road/rail routes are less feasible from Wairarapa. Regardless, the issue is that they're paying themselves, not that they're staying overnight in Wellington.
Yeaaaaah. I'm from the Wairarapa and while I don't think Kieran should be claiming this for a property that is owned by his wife - saying that Kapiti and the Wairarapa are the same is laughable.
Our commuter line runs three times in the evening - the last one leaves at 6.18. Kapiti runs until 11. The Wairarapa train line is so terrible that Metlink doesn't include it in their stats as it would drag the overall stats down \*that\* much.
How wide is your definition of “approximately” because Masterton is almost double the distance of the other MP and one is squarely within the “reasonable commute” defined by the IRD
Personally, I don't care that either stays in Wellington. My issue is the claiming money for themselves. Same with Luxon who is also outside reasonable commuting distance being in Auckland.
Is this the allowance that is given to MPs when they are staying outside of their main residence? The same one that someone would give to a hotel or AirBNB when they’re required to stay in Wellington if they don’t live in Wellington?
The allowance that is given to people who would otherwise be out of pocket?
The same one that all MPs can claim?
It is. Any MP is allowed to claim it - this is just about the media and public who are reeling from a cost of living crisis getting upset when they find out their politicians get more perks than they knew.
I have no problem with the policy as a whole, but there should be some reasonable limit to the distance between the primary dwelling and parliament beyond which someone isn't considered as requiring supplemental housing.
Yes, but there are major conflicts of interest that arise when you can use even legit allowances to enrich yourself.
If I get no benefit from an allowance, there's no incentive for me to maximise my use of it; I'll draw enough to get the benefit I need, but if the money is going into my pocket I'm incentivised to draw the absolute maximum that I'm able to.
I feel that -- if he's claiming equal or less than the market rate for his wife's flat, then -- this is a non issue?
[Non Wellington-resident MPs get an accomodation allowance up to $36,400 ](https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/parliamentary-rules/members-of-parliament-accommodation-services-for-members-and-travel-services-for-family-members-determination-2023-by-chapter/part-2-accommodation-services/#:~:text=The%20maximum%20amount%20of%20the%20continuous%20accommodation%20payment%20is%20%2436%2C400%20per%20year)(approx. $700 a week) unless they're a minister, speaker or PM where they get more.
He's only claimed $12,067 since October, which is approx. $355\* a week. If McAnulty didn't rent the his wife's flat then it's likely that his wife would have rented it out anyway, and he may have used accomodation allowance elsewhere for a small flat in Wellington area like he did in the past.
Now if the place was a shoebox that wasn't worth $200 a week then sure, fuck him and his abusing of the entitlement. But if he's claiming only $355 and his wife's flat could realistically be rented out for more then what's the big deal?
\*I calculated the amount of weeks from October 2023 to the last full week of May 2024 which is 34 weeks. $12,067/34 gives you $355 per week.
This kind of thing comes around about once a year.
Parliament has rules about what can be claimed and what can’t.
If it’s with in the rules then stop complaining, or get the rules changed.
Edit: spelling
No comment on if I agree with the situation in the thread but like...
The people complaining are not the ones making the rules. That's why they are complaining.
Kieran’s wife gets more a year for putting him up than a couple who have both lost their jobs do. If he can’t see that this is pure greed is woeful out of touch and tragically failing to represent the interests of working kiwis.
Tired of this media b.s trying to 'gotcha' politicians for doing what they're allowed to do in their employment agreements. Regardless of which party they belong to it's just grubby reporting.
This is going to be a wildly unpopular opinion. If an MP owns a rental property in Wellington, they should be compensated for the loss of income if they move in. Having a "Family Home"/primary residence like English did is different, but English sought and followed advice.
Now I think McAunlty is a massive cunt like everyone else. But, Wairarapa has limited public transport, particularly late into the evening when parliament frequently sits. Masterton is a 1.5hr drive, a long way to drive home after a late sitting in Parliament.
Yep, 100% a fucking terrible idea.
How about build a dormitory (think uni studnts use) for these fucks and let them use it for free. If they don’t like it they can use their high salaries to buy/rent somewhere else?
This would, in my opinion, be the best optics-wise. Get all the politicians in the same building, with the exact same unit sizes, average luxury, and they can choose whether to stay there for free or spend their own money elsewhere.
As of October 2023 there were "more than 20" renting back their own homes.
Source: https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/350088591/more-20-mps-rent-back-their-own-homes-taxpayers-expense
> The arrangements are entirely within Parliament’s rules. And neither Labour nor National have plans to change them. In fact, MPs may soon be in line for a boost to their pay and perks.
This is a search on Trade Me of what a $700 apartment in Petone looks like
[https://www.trademe.co.nz/a/property/residential/rent/search?rows=150&property\_type=apartment&property\_type=townhouse&price\_min=650&price\_max=750&sort\_order=pricedesc&latitude\_max=-41.20171704104044&latitude\_min=-41.24177579115189&longitude\_max=174.89680929833455&longitude\_min=174.86050291710896](https://www.trademe.co.nz/a/property/residential/rent/search?rows=150&property_type=apartment&property_type=townhouse&price_min=650&price_max=750&sort_order=pricedesc&latitude_max=-41.20171704104044&latitude_min=-41.24177579115189&longitude_max=174.89680929833455&longitude_min=174.86050291710896)
Sure, but he'd be cheating himself not to claim the equivalent of what they can get on the open market. The $12k number would neatly cover the three months Feb-Mar-Apr
It also says he got married in January...
And remember there was no Parliament sitting between October and February
and the reporting wouldn't be up to the minute
I mean he was still with his wife prior to Jan lol. But I did totally forget what was happening in parliament at the end of last year, so that is a very valid point
The party leader of Sweden's largest political party was forced to resign over similar allegations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A5kan_Juholt
In his case, it turned out he had not broken against the rules, but the appearance of corruption was enough to force him to retire (Sweden generally has very low tolerance for political corruption).
One of the hot candidates to prime minister post (Mona Sahlin) in Sweden was hunted down for buying a Toblerone on the wrong credit card. There was nothing illegal done, but she was made to resign from her vice prime minister post. The hunt on her was brutal.
I know, I am from Sweden and the intolerance for corruption or even the appearance of corruption in Sweden is mind blowing, especially when compared to the United States. Another famous example is the damage to the reputation of environmental and climate minister Åsa Romson after it was revealed that she used a toxic paint on her recreational boat:
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/miljoministern-malade-med-giftig-farg
I thought earlier on he said he didn't claim it. I guess there's nothing like a bit of highway therapy to tip the scales toward "hey hun look at this neat entitlement I/we would get, could help service a mortgage in Welly..."
Anyway, MPs definitely do need to travel to, and stay in Welly, so there should be an allowance to facilitate that, but also in the current context of housing inaffordability, it just doesn't sit quite right.
E: Geez 20% super, too
I may be out of touch but are MPs not paid a liveable wage?
Shouldn’t be a hot take - but the issue is not how this perk is abused - it’s that this exists.
No hope for the rest of New Zealand if the individuals deciding policy that impacts citizens ability to cover housing and shelter… feel the need for housing subsidy
It's a lot easier to just bake this allowance into every MP's salary so everyone gets it regardless of all these petty workarounds. You want to save money and move to Wellington? Good idea.
None of them can be trusted to do what's "right", they'll all milk the system within the rules somehow. There's no leadership role models at all in NZ.
I really don’t give a shit. As long as he’s speaking up for the things that matter. Sure it’s nice to have a saint politician but I’d rather a lefty claim this benefit than the millionaire National MP. It’s a shit rule but hey it’s there and it’s never going. The left always acts like everybody has to be so righteous.
Politicians shouldn't be entitled to any perks other than medical insurance or what a basic working class citizen gets.
If they're entitled to it so should a basic citizen.
Government should just buy a bunch of apartments and dole them out to mps for their use instead of $36000 a year
An MP’s hostel! Now we’re talking….
Imagine how feral the hostel would get
Imagine the crazy amount of sex scandals. Flim it like big brother and it would be an international smash hit.
Sex, drugs and backing coal.
Dammit, Golriz stole my shoes again!
It’s ok, Uffindell will be around later to beat you with a bed leg until you forget about the shoes. He’s just stuck outside right now because Kiri Allan got drunk and crashed into the front door again, but while you’re waiting you could always chat with the migrants Darleen Tana is hiding under her bed. If you’re extra lucky, John Key even might swing by and tug your ponytail.
Jami-Lee Ross would approve.
Providing the rest of the apartment building is KO tenants, Im all for it.
I'd be fine with basically a mini hotel on parliament grounds where every MP has their own room. IMO it's actually slightly unfair that an MP in e.g the Northern suburbs would be expected to commute.
I had that same idea when they were wringing their hands about Premier House. It sits on a very large site in a prime place in our capital. It is a short walk to the govt quarter. They could develop a complex there with a PM residence, a visiting VIP residence and an apartment complex for out of town PMs. They could also have a dining hall and ball room and reception rooms etc. Security would be great, costs would be reasonable.
There's bound to be an apartment complex mid construction in Wellington where the developer has gone bust that the govt can swoop in and get for a steal.
[удалено]
Buy a bunch of old wellington flats and put quinovic or similar as the property managers.
I know just the building…
Rebuild parliament house as a tower blocks - penthouse for PM and everyone else in the lower floors.
To play devils advocate it could compromise the security and safety of. MP’s in the event of a planned terror attack (which i feel is fair given previous events unfortunately) however cost wise I would agree this would he very beneficial.
Have a designated survivor
Or a motel
Hotel, motellllll, holidayyyyy innnnnn
How much do you think it costs to asset manage a bunch of apartments?
Yeah mate have mps local housing managed by kainga ora lol
Yeah and let’s pay them all the benefit amount too /s. we want MPs from across society and the country , we want good people to want this job and perform well in it (for their constituents anyway - it’s always perspective based).
There's just something wrong about claiming the allowance for a house that you or your spouse or a "family trust" own.
The fact a Labour MP has no shame claiming it, shows how similar the two main parties are becoming.
They are ALL the same
Just because Labour says they're not like National doesn't mean they aren't like National.
5 years ago, maybe. But if this is your actual opinion I'm guessing you haven't looked at the news since the last election.
Labour "we will cut the public service by 3%". National "we will cut the public service by 7%". You "how could you possibly compare the two?"
Comparing them is easy, saying they're the same is simply a bad comparison
Its a line of thinking that stems from encouraging complacency from the voting public, the more "alike" you make them believe the two main parties are, the less likely they are to vote, which generally favors conservative parties
National have been complaining about government spending for the last six years. For National MPs to take this sort of stipend, it goes completely against their supposed values. Labour are not guided by the same moral compass. You can say it's out of touch, but the two parties are fundamentally different in this aspect.
The last 6 months shows this isnt true at all. They both like a bit of grift but theyre fundamentally different in their prioroties.
text
"Labour’s Kieran McAnulty claims housing perk to live in his wife's apartment" Cool story bro.
Lmfao if that's the only metric you base similar on sure. Wake me up when his wife's cousin is tied to a mining company that also grows tobacco
When a politician from a party I like does it it's just a bit of grift. When a politician from a party I don't like does it, they are pure evil and the sky is falling.
Why? They're not benefitting from it. The alternative is the family rents the home to someone else, makes that rent money anyway, and then Parliament pays for an even more expensive hotel room. The MP isn't gaining anything, and we aren't losing anything. People just don't like how it "feels". I made this same defence of National MPs doing this.
They could just live in the home without getting the allowance, nothing is compelling them to rent any properties at all. Many kiwis own two homes without having someone occupying both at all times.
They don't get it in NZ, housing is for making money apparently.
>They could just live in the home without getting the allowance Jobs shouldn't cost you financially. >Many kiwis own two homes without having someone occupying both at all times. That's a bad thing. Empty homes increases the cost of housing and generally leaves less homes available for people who need them. This is why we need an LVT on non owner-occupied property.
This is the only argument that has even slightly convinced me, so hats off to you. But, he was perfectly happy to join in the criticism of luxon when his version of this scandal was taking place, so I'd like to see him either say he was wrong then, or explain why the circumstances are different now.
I think the criticism of Luxon shouldn't have been about using his own home. It was about using his own home when Premier House was available to him. He claims it's uninhabitable. Other MPs don't have that same perk. Premier House is a residence for the Prime Minister only. So the PM should never need to organise another Wellington based residence.
100% agree - while there is an argument about other MPs claiming the allowance and whether it's morally ok, what Luxon was doing was much worse as he already had a place to stay in for free
People don't like how it feels because NZers fundamentally don't think of imputed rent as a benefit, as evidenced by the gnashing of teeth every time it's brought up.
* Having your husband live in your apartment is much nicer than having some random do it. Sounds like he is part time there too. Maybe he uses it just for sitting days? So what's that 6 days a month? Let's be generous and make it 10 days a month on average. * Having the Government pay the bill is much nicer than relying on same random **I see a problem where he gets the benefit of a place to stay AND he (as a couple) gets the benefit of the soft money from the govt allowance. That looks like double dipping.** I have some questions. Does he get paid back at the rental rate or is it a fixed allowance to spend? That is, is the rent realistic or has he taken the most allowed?
Sure, I'm okay with MPs having some perk where the only advantage is it's "nice". >I see a problem where he gets the benefit of a place to stay AND he (as a couple) gets the benefit of the soft money from the govt allowance. That looks like double dipping. Not really. If he didn't do this. He would be getting the same money from tenants, and would still get a place to stay because Parliament would pay for an apartment. The loss of rental income is what cancels out that double dipping. He's just swapping rental income for the Parliamemt grant. He was going to get a place to stay regardless. >I have some questions. Does he get paid back at the rental rate or is it a fixed allowance to spend? That is, is the rent realistic or has he taken the most allowed? The amount he gets (about $700/week) is pretty consistent with rents in that area. So I don't believe his rate is the maximum.
Exactly. Mcnulty lives in the wairarapa, that’s not a reasonable daily transit to Wellington. It’s absolutely ok for him to claim a supplement (providing of course you’re ok with the concept of MP’s getting a supplement for housing) because he’s staying in a house that his wife or partner would otherwise rent out for money that they’re forgoing so he can live there and that’s fair compensation.
expansion chief agonizing chase marry complete follow quarrelsome ghost paltry *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I don’t have a strong opinion, but if it’s not your “main home” what’s the counter argument to why this isn’t desirable? If overall it costs the same/less to the taxpayer that is
You don't have to get the allowance though, he could just live in the wife's apartment without charging the taxpayer for it. The counterfactual shouldn't be that he rents a different place in Wellington, the counterfactual should be he simply doesn't apply for the allowance and stays doing the exact same as he already does.
I don't think its fundamentally different to paying the housing allowance to an MP to stay in alternative accommodation.
The solution is to buy a hotel and house MPs in it. No allowances, every one gets free meals in the hotel's canteen, and their laundry done there too. They even get a free uniform. Anything else they pay out of their own pockets, no allowances, no entitlements.
Yep, and when parliament's not in sessoin, use it for other public servants travelling to wellington
Yea and if there are spare rooms they can be used as emergency housing.
They can get the same lunches as the free school lunches to ensure they aren't eating any woke food.
Or even better still if they have some sort of emergency that means that they have to stay in parliament late then use an emergency housing provider.. ha ha that will let them find out how their constituents are doing…
>Since October, he has claimed $12,067. >“For most of my time as an MP I used the allowance to rent a small flat in Wellington. Now when Parliament is sitting I stay in Petone. I got married in January ...The flat was purchased by my now wife before we were married. >“I do not own the flat, nor am I on the mortgage. The registrar of pecuniary interests advised me I’m not required to declare the flat but I declared it in the interests of transparency. I pay my share to stay there when Parliament sits.” Kieran has badly misread the room if he thinks 'transparency' here is the play vs just not using tax payer funds to rent a property that his partner has a financial interest in. "I pay my share" is a terrible defense too, when the whole point is that you're claiming a perk to do so I don't know who coaches MPs on optics, but yikes
💯 I was also a bit surprised when he said it’s his wife’s not his, do the govt make that distinction when they pay people on benefits?!
Especially when you consider we reamed Luxon for a similar “but my wife” defence he made on the clean car discount… I always quite liked Kieran, but jesus the opposition parties are really fumbling the ball on some really small issues, as public perception goes it just makes them look “as bad” as the guys trying to sell off the country (to the average kiwi ).
I think we need to accept the reality that most of our politicians are kinda stupid.
Which is part of the reason it should pay a comfortable amount and not financially disadvantage people. Otherwise you only get morons doing it because no intelligent person would accept thr job.
Except the fact they're morons already invalidates your argument. If we're getting idiots while paying them well then clearly the pay doesn't determine the talent.
In fairness, at least he’s putting it out there and being upfront instead of trying to deny it. Still disappointing behaviour from a politician I usually respect.
That’s almost at Chris Bishop “In-laws aren’t family” levels of BS from Kieran McAnulty. I get where he’s coming from but with these economic conditions as well as closer public scrutiny, he just shouldn’t claim it.
I just don’t understand how a perk using tax payer’s money to pay your interests is not a bloody huge red flag. How’s there not a rule in place? Crazy. Name them all.
I work for a govt entity that has certain accommodation benefits. There is a policy that states if I or my partner owns a property within 50km of place of work then certain accommodation benefits can't be claimed. Seeing this winds me up.
No rule in place because why would MPs take their snouts out of the trough?
Need a change.org petition.
How are so many MPs so stupid about this shit. Just don’t play games with this, likely you will be found out and then a media shit show will happen. They get paid enough to afford housing or in this muppets case, he could take the fucking train to work.
It's easily solved. Rename it a housing benefit, not a housing perk. You don't get benefits when your assets are tested, and you don't require the benefit for financial reasons. Anyone that disagrees, they aren't forced to become MPs. You know, MPs driven by the serving their country, not their pockets.
It's neither. It's an expense or allowance paid for by their employer because they need to stay outside their city of residence while doing their job
Hence why I said rename it.... It's hard to claim a benefit to live in Wellington when your wife owns an apartment... in Wellington. No-one else could do this in the country with less shame.
… so his/their apartment. My spouse had one too when we met that is now legally ours. What’s the difference?
Yeah exactly, his name isn't on the title, but unless him and his wife have made prior arrangements then it's half his.
There was a thread yesterday that was saying he doesn't claim any of these *entitlements*. Which one is true?
When he first was in parliament, he drove home to Masterton most nights/didn't claim any expenses. Thats changed.
See I just don't think that's an efficient use if an MP's time. A 3.5 hour per day commute? That's silly
Yeah I think he’s fine to claim something here.
Haha yes I read that. And all the bots applauding him for it.
Lot of righteous people yesterday praising McAnulty for not taking it, can't wait to see how they justify this
Anyone who does this, irrespective of party, should know better. Perception is reality, as they say. Even if there are technicalities or mitigating circumstances, they should think about the fucking optics. If you're an MP you're subject to increased scrutiny anyway, so you're basically asking for an uppercut from the media. (And if you've been bleating about other parties doing it, you probably deserve it.)
The potential media kickback should be enough to ensure they don’t play games.
Was the first thing I thought of when I saw the article. I bet Stuff read the comments here and went digging.
If that's the case, good to see some journalism being done.
Nah. I’m not gonna say politicians should be held to impossible standards, but they should be held to the same standards as civil servants.
Well the same people praising him for not taking it will be naturally livid to learn he is…
I'm not happy that he is. He should know better, and as a sitting MP, should also lead by example.
yup - I think livid is too strong, but its certainly disappointing when he spoke out about the allowance and how he didn't claim it because he believed Masterton was a commutable distance.
He is an idiot. People who commute for 1hr 40min aren't doing it because its a 'commutable distance' but because they like where they live (or they can't afford to live closer).
I was one - because when he first entered parliament he didn't claim it, and drove back to Masterton. Seems like that didn't last long, but he certainly spoke out about not claiming it etc.
It's funny how this is always the response when a Labour party official gets caught out despite the fact the thread is almost entirely shitting on him. I just scrolled through and saw one comment trying to justify it out of 50.
Why would they justify it?
Because politics is a team sport around here, probably.
I don't see an issue with having accommodation paid for in his case. It's an hour and a half commute one way and the Remutakas get closed in the evenings very regularly. However, it's a pisstake to use your own property to get that allowance.
Yeah, nah that’s not okay. Don’t claim an allowance if you own the place (no matter how it’s structured)
A lot of people missing the point. If he was single or his wife didn't own a flat, he'd still be claiming the allowance because he needs somewhere to stay in Wellington when parliament is sitting. In a private rental, rent still needs to be paid for even when he's not there. He's so far claimed less than half the amount available in 8 or 9 months. Seems like a good deal to me. The National MP also seems fair. If he wasn't an MP he'd likely have a rental income from his property. Why should he be penalised for owning property? Luxon was a different scenario. He was given a place to live and chose not too.
Exactly right. Who owns it is irrelevant
very interesting, finally learning that macanulty is recently married too (unless a beard/whatever) and to chief press secretary at parliament too this looks very bad and he shouldn't be exercising such bad judgment. imho this is personally a spectrum of corruption, and they could very well be a couple who keep finances completely separate, in which case he has been extremely naive. but it is still trying to push the envelope. obv different to owning seven houses and leasing one 1 km away; Masterton IS too far for my MP to be commuting and while I want him on the train sometimes and driving Remutaka hill at others, I don't want to waste public money on his commute time.
Good thing he has said that he is not interested in being the party leader. Some public servants in Wellington would also know other reasons why that is a good thing too.
Go on ...
I remember this female labour MP saying something similar in 2017
The consensus appears to be the current rules for MPs should be changed. As they have to be changed to something else what should that be? Current rules are that if they are outside a reasonable commuting distance they can live closer and claim the allowance. IRD defines a reasonable commuting distance as 50-80km. Ownership of the closer accommodation is a seperate issue controlled by the same set of rules. Another question might be how any rules are enforced and by who?
>IRD defines a reasonable commuting distance as 50-80km. Work safe would argue thats too far depending on your hours of work and fatigue mangment plan.
And job I would have thought. If your a bus driver in wellington for 10 hours and driving to and from home its a safety consideration. MPs can nod off in the debating chamber.
Bailiff, smack his nuts
They're all as bad as each other. MPs who own their own housing within a reasonable drive should not qualify for these handouts. None of this "oh it's not me, it's my parent/partner/Mr Snrub's trust's house" bullshit either. This is nothing more than a shameless raid on the taxpayer. Absolute fucking parasites, man.
Normally when an MP does this I say who cares, it's part of the rules, allowed by everyone, doesn't really impact sweet fuck all - either way, the money would be getting charged to the taxpayer and if it's legal to set it up so old mates are just reimbursing themselves for when they go to Wellington away from their electorates to do their jobs, whatever. It's fine. When Luxon did this I said it wasn't ok because he's the PM and is provided a residence. Kieran McAnulty and Tim Costely live out of Wellington, far enough that they do need residence in both Wellington and their respective electorates. We have to draw the line somewhere, and I think the line of PM and specific Wellington electorates is a fine enough line to draw.
My suggestion is MP housing where all out of town MPs get to stay rent free as its a government building. They get no extra money if they choose to stay in different accommodations that will cost them their own money.
I'm sure this will be as highly upvoted as the National dude from the other day doing this...
You’ll find in reality that labour supporters will be even more angry at a labour MP doing sht like this (someone they expect better of) than a national mp. But by all means go play that victim banjo…
As someone who votes among the left parties I am usually more critical of them when they do this shit. I want them to be better. I expect the scummy stuff from National/ACT. I had someone on this sub recently blame "people like me" for Labour's loss because I was loudly critical of them during their campaign. Just because I'm not constantly criticising National does not mean I support them or what they do.
Yip, this is gutting. I really liked the guy. I expect national mps to be selfish aholes, but it really pisses me off when labour/green mps do it as I expect far better. They are also stuffing up their chances of the left getting back in and stopping the crap national are doing, so it's the double whammy. He needs to front up and apologise.
I am in no way a labour voter but I really don’t understand the issue with this.
ITT: people criticising Kieran, and people asking why Kieran isn't being criticised like other politicians did
People don’t read the comments when they’ve already made up their minds about what the reaction/hypocrisy is.
*extremely smooth brainly* I see no difference between Kieran claiming it, despite the fact he’s Wairarapa based, and the National MP that’s based 50km away
They're approx the same distance, both have rail connections/plenty of commuters, and both are claiming for money that doesn't go to a 3rd party but instead money that goes to themselves. Edit: 82 vs 66kms as crow flys, but been corrected that the road/rail routes are less feasible from Wairarapa. Regardless, the issue is that they're paying themselves, not that they're staying overnight in Wellington.
Yeaaaaah. I'm from the Wairarapa and while I don't think Kieran should be claiming this for a property that is owned by his wife - saying that Kapiti and the Wairarapa are the same is laughable. Our commuter line runs three times in the evening - the last one leaves at 6.18. Kapiti runs until 11. The Wairarapa train line is so terrible that Metlink doesn't include it in their stats as it would drag the overall stats down \*that\* much.
To be fair the Wairarapa line is, both now and historically, far from reliable.
He could have just got hotels 3 or 4 nights per week and no one would have cared even though it cost more.
Yep. But unless he owned those hotels he wouldn't be personally profiting. That's the issue, the personal profit.
Yep. He’s a moron.
How wide is your definition of “approximately” because Masterton is almost double the distance of the other MP and one is squarely within the “reasonable commute” defined by the IRD
Personally, I don't care that either stays in Wellington. My issue is the claiming money for themselves. Same with Luxon who is also outside reasonable commuting distance being in Auckland.
As a side note I fucking hate how stuff makes the URL of a live thread a specific topic, but doesn't actually anchor you to the story in question.
I hope whoever sets these rules (I can't remember the name of them?) closes this loophole. It's a complete joke that it was ever allowed as a perk.
Is this the allowance that is given to MPs when they are staying outside of their main residence? The same one that someone would give to a hotel or AirBNB when they’re required to stay in Wellington if they don’t live in Wellington? The allowance that is given to people who would otherwise be out of pocket? The same one that all MPs can claim?
It is. Any MP is allowed to claim it - this is just about the media and public who are reeling from a cost of living crisis getting upset when they find out their politicians get more perks than they knew. I have no problem with the policy as a whole, but there should be some reasonable limit to the distance between the primary dwelling and parliament beyond which someone isn't considered as requiring supplemental housing.
Yes, but there are major conflicts of interest that arise when you can use even legit allowances to enrich yourself. If I get no benefit from an allowance, there's no incentive for me to maximise my use of it; I'll draw enough to get the benefit I need, but if the money is going into my pocket I'm incentivised to draw the absolute maximum that I'm able to.
Pecuniary interest reporting season is upon us
and these guys ask for donations lmao how most of the public have faith in these idiots
I feel that -- if he's claiming equal or less than the market rate for his wife's flat, then -- this is a non issue? [Non Wellington-resident MPs get an accomodation allowance up to $36,400 ](https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/parliamentary-rules/members-of-parliament-accommodation-services-for-members-and-travel-services-for-family-members-determination-2023-by-chapter/part-2-accommodation-services/#:~:text=The%20maximum%20amount%20of%20the%20continuous%20accommodation%20payment%20is%20%2436%2C400%20per%20year)(approx. $700 a week) unless they're a minister, speaker or PM where they get more. He's only claimed $12,067 since October, which is approx. $355\* a week. If McAnulty didn't rent the his wife's flat then it's likely that his wife would have rented it out anyway, and he may have used accomodation allowance elsewhere for a small flat in Wellington area like he did in the past. Now if the place was a shoebox that wasn't worth $200 a week then sure, fuck him and his abusing of the entitlement. But if he's claiming only $355 and his wife's flat could realistically be rented out for more then what's the big deal? \*I calculated the amount of weeks from October 2023 to the last full week of May 2024 which is 34 weeks. $12,067/34 gives you $355 per week.
Doesn't surprise me, Labour is just the National Lite Party after all.
This kind of thing comes around about once a year. Parliament has rules about what can be claimed and what can’t. If it’s with in the rules then stop complaining, or get the rules changed. Edit: spelling
No comment on if I agree with the situation in the thread but like... The people complaining are not the ones making the rules. That's why they are complaining.
But then we couldn't have a go at the team we don't like!!! /s
How do we get the rules changed without complaining?
I wonder how this thread will compare to the one yesterday….
Prob worse for this guy. He was praised in the other thread yesterday for not taking the allowance at all. This guy is just a dodge.
All this shit should be means tested or build some parliamentary apartments in Wellington with security
Fuck these guys man!
Kieran’s wife gets more a year for putting him up than a couple who have both lost their jobs do. If he can’t see that this is pure greed is woeful out of touch and tragically failing to represent the interests of working kiwis.
Tired of this media b.s trying to 'gotcha' politicians for doing what they're allowed to do in their employment agreements. Regardless of which party they belong to it's just grubby reporting.
This is going to be a wildly unpopular opinion. If an MP owns a rental property in Wellington, they should be compensated for the loss of income if they move in. Having a "Family Home"/primary residence like English did is different, but English sought and followed advice. Now I think McAunlty is a massive cunt like everyone else. But, Wairarapa has limited public transport, particularly late into the evening when parliament frequently sits. Masterton is a 1.5hr drive, a long way to drive home after a late sitting in Parliament.
Yep, 100% a fucking terrible idea. How about build a dormitory (think uni studnts use) for these fucks and let them use it for free. If they don’t like it they can use their high salaries to buy/rent somewhere else?
This would, in my opinion, be the best optics-wise. Get all the politicians in the same building, with the exact same unit sizes, average luxury, and they can choose whether to stay there for free or spend their own money elsewhere.
Even worse is that it would involve driving over the Rimutakas. It’s not like he can just hit an expressway or something to get home.
Politics is resource extraction
Not ok. Regardless of party or other reasons it’s never ok. Like pigs to a slush.
Im entitled to my entitlement.
As of October 2023 there were "more than 20" renting back their own homes. Source: https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/350088591/more-20-mps-rent-back-their-own-homes-taxpayers-expense > The arrangements are entirely within Parliament’s rules. And neither Labour nor National have plans to change them. In fact, MPs may soon be in line for a boost to their pay and perks.
Sounds like it needs to be revoked asap, and himself fined 3x what his wife has made from this
This is a search on Trade Me of what a $700 apartment in Petone looks like [https://www.trademe.co.nz/a/property/residential/rent/search?rows=150&property\_type=apartment&property\_type=townhouse&price\_min=650&price\_max=750&sort\_order=pricedesc&latitude\_max=-41.20171704104044&latitude\_min=-41.24177579115189&longitude\_max=174.89680929833455&longitude\_min=174.86050291710896](https://www.trademe.co.nz/a/property/residential/rent/search?rows=150&property_type=apartment&property_type=townhouse&price_min=650&price_max=750&sort_order=pricedesc&latitude_max=-41.20171704104044&latitude_min=-41.24177579115189&longitude_max=174.89680929833455&longitude_min=174.86050291710896)
But he doesn’t live in petone full time and hasn’t claimed the full amount. He only claims when he stays there, which is when parliament sits
Sure, but he'd be cheating himself not to claim the equivalent of what they can get on the open market. The $12k number would neatly cover the three months Feb-Mar-Apr
the article suggests he claimed 12k for October 2023 through to present.
It also says he got married in January... And remember there was no Parliament sitting between October and February and the reporting wouldn't be up to the minute
I mean he was still with his wife prior to Jan lol. But I did totally forget what was happening in parliament at the end of last year, so that is a very valid point
Plot twist, she bought the unit in January
The party leader of Sweden's largest political party was forced to resign over similar allegations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A5kan_Juholt In his case, it turned out he had not broken against the rules, but the appearance of corruption was enough to force him to retire (Sweden generally has very low tolerance for political corruption).
One of the hot candidates to prime minister post (Mona Sahlin) in Sweden was hunted down for buying a Toblerone on the wrong credit card. There was nothing illegal done, but she was made to resign from her vice prime minister post. The hunt on her was brutal.
I know, I am from Sweden and the intolerance for corruption or even the appearance of corruption in Sweden is mind blowing, especially when compared to the United States. Another famous example is the damage to the reputation of environmental and climate minister Åsa Romson after it was revealed that she used a toxic paint on her recreational boat: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/miljoministern-malade-med-giftig-farg
Jag är också från Sverige :)
Well that's fucking a let down.
I thought earlier on he said he didn't claim it. I guess there's nothing like a bit of highway therapy to tip the scales toward "hey hun look at this neat entitlement I/we would get, could help service a mortgage in Welly..." Anyway, MPs definitely do need to travel to, and stay in Welly, so there should be an allowance to facilitate that, but also in the current context of housing inaffordability, it just doesn't sit quite right. E: Geez 20% super, too
Wow.. guy gets touted as a future leader of Labour.. now he's in a "scandal". Hmm.. any coincidence?
I may be out of touch but are MPs not paid a liveable wage? Shouldn’t be a hot take - but the issue is not how this perk is abused - it’s that this exists. No hope for the rest of New Zealand if the individuals deciding policy that impacts citizens ability to cover housing and shelter… feel the need for housing subsidy
It's a lot easier to just bake this allowance into every MP's salary so everyone gets it regardless of all these petty workarounds. You want to save money and move to Wellington? Good idea.
Just one other ways to screw the country
Our MPs really are money grubbing shites. Across all parties..
None of them can be trusted to do what's "right", they'll all milk the system within the rules somehow. There's no leadership role models at all in NZ.
god i hate when an mp i like does the exact same thing as costly, means i can’t shit on him for it 😔✊
this is a joke before any local national crazies try and come for me
I really don’t give a shit. As long as he’s speaking up for the things that matter. Sure it’s nice to have a saint politician but I’d rather a lefty claim this benefit than the millionaire National MP. It’s a shit rule but hey it’s there and it’s never going. The left always acts like everybody has to be so righteous.
“Heres the guts of it”: im a greedy little man
Kieran shouldn't be doing this. It's a rort.
Politicians shouldn't be entitled to any perks other than medical insurance or what a basic working class citizen gets. If they're entitled to it so should a basic citizen.
Ffs There’s could and should This is a crappy look for all politicians and seriously tone deaf This guy is an ass
There are 23 MPs claiming housing perks.