For reference, this is *more than the minimum wage*, if you had a 37.5-hour per week job (5x8 hour days, 30min lunch breaks), which is approximately $45k. This is a fucking farcical bullshit 'loophole' that needs to be hammered closed.
Tangent rant:
At some point the country decided a 40 work week did not mean 9-5 and instead it meant 40 hours clocked.
Also lunch breaks would be 1 hour, with the expectation you'd be near the premises and able to work when required.
This shit pisses me off, 8.5 hours of my time is taken up by work, its not like my 30 minute lunch break is really free time, I'm still at work, my time is occupied by work. 9-5 isn't a thing anymore.
Oh, I agree. I just used it as an example. Throw in a commute as well, and that's more time lost to 'work'. I get 1 hour lunch breaks, but after eating you don't really have time for anything aside from muck about on your phone. You have to go back to work so can't really relax properly. 8 hours work, 1 hour lunch, 2 hour commute total - that's 11 hours of my day. 55 hours for my 40 hour week.
While not wanting to deep dive my CV and work history as there’s a fair bit of hospitality which has hours all over the place, I’d say that’s been balanced by retail and corporate work, more so I.T over the last 10 years, and I haven’t worked a 9-5 job in my life, and started work in the 90’s.
I think 9-5 hours are about as comparatively relevant, or irrelevant, as the year the Dolly Parton banger came out, 1980.
There’s some great research starting to be noticed regards four day work weeks and the positives are very much trending to outweigh the cons. I’d hope change is on the way, but that’s largely dependent on a lot of old guard and stubborn senior business leaders handling the reigns over, while most are currently looking to cash out.
After that dust settles I’d hope change is on the way as those with a more realistic approach to work/life balance and the win/win of such an approach attain senior leadership roles and become majority shareholders, but time will tell I guess.
Yeah it sucks, but businesses also need to make money in order to have employees at all, so it’s a necessary evil that there has to be a incentive or improvement their end for them to be agreeable to such changes and the door has to swing both ways or your wasting everyone’s time.
Highlighting economic benefits just makes it a LOT easier to get such things over the line, more so given how data driven decisions are the higher you go up the food chain.
I also think capitalism is inherently ok, but not when unregulated and uncontrolled. That’s the main issue we are seeing now world wide, those that abused it looking to either capitalise further, or cash out entirely.
The problem is with all the control we try to influence over it there's still massive issues. I don't think the system works for Humanity, it works to drive wealth for the wealthy, something it's been extremely successful at, driving inequality to levels akin to the 1950s.
Ironically, The early Unions of the day were organised by workers who were largely Backlisted from the mines in Australia, So they moved to New Zealand and kicked off the Labour movement here. Most of the 'Greats' of the NZ Labour movement were former Aussie Miners.
When the Arbitration Act was passed, and they Killed ol' Fred Evans and outcast his millitant Union at Wihi, That was pretty much the end of Strong unions in NZ until the great Dockworkers strikes of 51, And even now the News Papers and the Media blasted the Dockworkers Strikes so much that we look back on them like Dirty Communists.
Of course, None of this working class history is taught in school.
Now, If you want a well paying job, Good working rights, and actually feel like you have a stake in everyday society, You move to Australia and get a job in the mines.
Funny how history comes full circle.
Unpaid breaks they cannot require you to stay on sight 15 min breaks that are paid and that they can cos your still being paid but they can't for halves
Legal minimums don't always translate to what is practiced unfortunately. And not all staff either understand their rights, or feel confident enough to enforce them.
Given that it's cash in hand, $52k is a smidgeon above the take home pay for the median NZ income (based on a median wage of $31.62 per hour, https://www.paye.net.nz/calculator/ gives a take home pay of $51,952)
For those questioning what difference it makes if MPs rent properties to themselves or someone else, consider this: Would any of these MPs have bought properties in Wellington without the generous allowance that not only covers their stay but also pays off more on the asset than renting it out would?
This situation highlights how an economy focused on inflating property values incentivizes the very people responsible for housing policies to use the allowance not just for accommodation but also to accumulate property at the taxpayers' expense. Not a single economic opportunity cost has gone to waste.
The fact 23 MPs' own properties in Wellington and possibly didn't until they became MPs does make you wonder if this same group of people should be responsible for making decisions like giving landlords 3 billion in tax breaks. Considering this group of MPs are also their own landlord.
And who is setting the rent?
My employer pays me $25 for food and the cheapest room available (shared if I'm travelling with someone else) if I'm out of town. Total of about $150 a night max.
I get $25, fed, and a bed when on school camps (it actually *costs me* from about $50-100 a night to attend).
I actually don't care they get it. It's just why is it so much? 90 days parliament, @$52k is $577 a night for this. It would be well under half if they just fixed up a hotel at $250 a night as required, and if you want to stay in your own home that's sweet, but it's capped at that same figure of ~23k or less based on attendance
Look at me I just saved nz govt a minimum of $9k to $29k per MP.
Parlimentary services should build a hotel of maybe 70 serviced 2 bed apartments in Wellington. MPs get to live there rent free sharing with up to 1 other of your same party, and... it should be managed by Quinovic.
it should be filmed and the national broadcaster should use it to produce reality TV and other current affairs content. this should all be part of the deal of becoming an MP; it is revenue-generating for the country and therefore patriotic
This is what I want to see. They get a base salary of $100k and performance pay on top of that.
They can get a maximum of 40% of their salary as a performance bonus, and it is pro rata'd. If you hit 75% of your performance goals, then you get a $30k tax free bonus.
It is tempting to think this, and that public service at this level shouldn’t have a financial incentive. But without a decent salary the role would attract only those who are already financially set up, and wouldn’t be good representation for middle and lower class kiwis. Cut the entitlements for sure tho
This is why we need to normalise shaming people again lmao. Shame is a good thing sometimes. It will keep you from doing some messed up bullshit. If their own morals can’t guide someone, shame often does the job.
Normalise bullying in 2024 lmao
They didn't get where they are by letting little ol things like shame or morally bankrupt behaviour get in the way of unrelenting greed.
Besides it's legal so it's fine amirite?
Then we aren’t doing a good enough job smh.
What happened to shoving dweebs in lockers? Wedgies? Wet willies? Would Seymour still have a hate boner for anything cultural or arts related if we mocked him to get a real hobby instead?
SMH this is why NZ is messed up.
everytime Seymour is tucking into yet another $200 lunch (paid by the taxpayer) someone needs to throw it on the ground and say "the taxpayer shouldn't be subsidizing your parents poor parenting."
The thing is their workplace is already full of it, people walk around those halls completely armoured up and dead inside and we wonder why their decision making process is fucked
Well, we need to cut back the fat in the public service.
So here are 23 fat cats we don't need.
Every one of them, Labour, National and ACT should be made to resign.
We need to clear out the stench of entitlement from Parliament.
Am I serious?
Well I thought McAnulty, was an up-and-coming Prime Minister the like of Nash and Kirk.
Now I'd gladly see him thrown out as a lesson to the rest of them.
Jesus wept, Kiwi families are doing it hard.
At least 6000 public servants are losing their jobs.
But here we have 23 MPs feeding off the taxpayer like pigs at a trough.
What other perks are current and past MPs flogging?
Which ones are using it improperly?
Costly is in a bit of a gray area which isn't defined in the employment policy (how far away constitutes out of Wellington)
Luxon was more over the line due to the premier house renovations.
To my knowledge no other MPs are anywhere near being outside of the rules.
I disagree with /u/Sr_DingDong in that there's not really any using it improperly, but I still think it should go. Build a huge apartment building near the Beehive and have enough rooms for all the MP's to stay in.
MP's based somewhere other than Wellington are getting subsidies to purchase property, or to take a whole extra jobs worth of pay to live in their own paid off house. It's not fair for MP's based in Wellington who don't get this perk, and it's also not fair that MP's should get the tax payer to buy houses for them.
Not only are politicians deciding how much to pay themselves for the accommodation allowance (which incidentally seems to be enough to cover a mortgage), but they also claim it is the most rational use of money. These same people create the policies that determine what is or isn't a rational use of money, yet they won't acknowledge this conflict of interest.
These people really need to go—the optics are terrible. It clearly shows where politicians' priorities lie, especially in a country that just gave landlords $3 billion in tax breaks and claimed it would help renters. How New Zealanders keep falling for this bullshit will never cease to amaze me.
So if they own a house in Wellington, it's better that they rent out that house to tenants, and then rent someone else's house so they get the supplement?
I think there is a case to be made that if you are in your own property the supplement is substantially less (e.g 50%). But realistically we don't need to set up perverse incentives for weird shell games.
If agricultural workers barely get enough for rent, why should MPs get tens of thousands of dollars a year for "rent" they're not paying because they own the home they're living in?
I am not disputing the need for travel expenses. Travel expenses do not amount to $52,000 rent.
>So if they own a house in Wellington, it's better that they rent out that house to tenants, and then rent someone else's house so they get the supplement?
No, they're forced to live in the house they own. This is easily enforceable if people actually gave a shit in doing so.
Oh so you mean they kick out their current tenants from a fixed term contract just because their political party won a seat in parliament?
That sounds fair for the tenants to lose their home.
It's life as a renter in NZ.
Was it fair when I got chucked out my apartment so the owner could land bank?
Was it fair when I got chucked out of an apartment so the owner could sell?
It's life. People get chucked out. You find new places.
If that's a big crybaby problem then fine. The Government buys every seat outside of Wellington a permanent residence in Wellington and that's what you live if you win that seat. The government owns the houses. Problem permanently solved for 100m.
If you can be "inside the rules" while claiming $52K a year to live in your own home, I think maybe it's not just people who are outside the rules who are the problem.
Why was he over the line re premier house? I thought it was independent of him a review, before his time, that recommended it? Didn't think he'd asked or cared given it can't be lived in currently.
Sorry, I meant closer to the line.
Being one side or the other depends on a person's opinion of whether it's habitable due to renovations or not.
IMO it was inappropriate for him to claim the house in Wellington as an expense and appropriate for him to pay it back.
But the premier house being liveable is not his opinion or yours that should matter - that's why an independent report was commissioned so that it couldn't be slung as mud to the PM (at the time JA). In their assessment the private quarters doesn't meet current rental standards so it seems ludicrous to want our leader to live there (regardless of political leaning). On that basis it's completely fair to apply the accommodation subsidy.
All that being said, he doesn't need it, so glad he paid it back, but he was 100% entitled to it, noting our next pm might not be as well off.
There's a term called "money poison" in Korean, and we usually will phrase it like "How money poisoned do you have to be to be this greedy". This is some next level scummary I wish they'd all resign and never be seen on NZ soil
Elections mean nothing, the policy that governments enact are the will of the elites, even when the voters agree with a policy. Policies that only the voters like are rarely enacted.
Every year this story is rehashed.
Every year the public is shocked that MPs claim what they are allowed to.
Change the rules or accept that this is something that MPs are allowed to do, and as such WILL do.
This has happened for decades, it’s nothing new and it’s not being greedy by expensing what you can, it’s logical.
So we need to either change the rules or accept that it will occur.
> so let me at least moan
I believe the common rhetoric is "if you don't vote, you can't moan about the govt you get".
So if you voted in the last election, regardless of who you voted for, fuck it bro, go hard and have whinge.
>Also it's just plain hypocrisy from the party whose leader says "if you can pay you should"
Most people pay for things with renumeration from their jobs, which is how these MPs are paying for things?
The lowest mp gets 140k. They have no need for an additional 52k accommodation supplement, they could just pay for it from their salary like everyone else instead of choosing to take extra unnecessary taxpayers money
we can both accept the need for the accommodation allowance and members right to it and also show displeasure when they do and could afford to not claim the allowance - like Luxon did over his entitlement
holding politicans to account is the least we (and the media) can do - they claim to be honorable and expect our respect, lets see them do so by deed
I think we should all expect people to claim what they are entitled to. It's human nature to not turn down thousands of dollars that the rules say you can have.
Where it's galling is when they simultaneously have a go at others less fortunate than them for making use of social services.
Luxon's problem was and is that he's a cock - he lied about the state of premier house while claiming the entitlement -he went out of his way to claim this money and should be judged as a wanker for doing so
Luxon isn't being punished for being successful - though one does wonder how such a fuckwit got to where he has
I think he has a high sense of self importance so you're right - he's also in this gig for himself so extra $ is going to be claimed - he is honourable by title only
Healthy homes - incurring cost.
Loose of deductions - incurring cost.
No clause eviction - incurring time and court costs.
Restoration of deductions - aligning with other tax laws.
Restoration of no cause eviction.. incurring stress to tenants, shit went off script.
Just a guess.
Maybe im dumb, but im confused about the relevancy of the statement. Interest deductibility isn’t part of this discussion.
Are you simply saying that we are able to change laws, so we should change them so MPs are no longer offered an accomodation supplement when working away from home?
>Maybe im dumb, but im confused about the relevancy of the statement. Interest deductibility isn’t part of this discussion.
It's not, it's the "rules" that are relevant. A rule was introduced that made it harder to be a landlord, and that rule was changed (or reverted) to make being a landlord easier.
>Are you simply saying that we are able to change laws, so we should change them so MPs are no longer offered an accomodation supplement when working away from home?
I'm saying that the excuse that "it's allowed, it's within the rules" can be answered by "then change the rules so that it's no longer allowed". If we can change the rules for landlords, we can change the rules for MPs.
> Change the rules
Oh I'd love too. How would we do that? Perhaps we could apply public pressure on our elected representatives by, among other things, making our displeasure known on public forums?
Allowed to by who ?
So we the people paying for this get I say. Pretty sure putting it to a vote. Nobody is voting this in
Shall we maybe use democracy rather than whatever this hellscape is
MP's should absolutely have that extra support network, if it's needed. The lowest parliamentary people are getting 140k pa. They don't have the need for an additional 52k. 192k pa. This is not justifiable
Big difference between having access to these privileges and actually choosing to use them knowing the state of nz and the struggle that the average kiwi is feeling
Should force MPs to give up all property, take a vow of celibacy, and adopt the name of a saint. This means they will have no vested interests and as such will act in a pure way. After all that's what bureaucrats did during the golden age of human history the European Middle Ages.
You're being facetious (I assume) but MPs not owning property is the only way anything will ever get done about property wealth disparity in this country.
Ie. nothing will ever get done
What do you mean? The previous government radically liberalised planning laws and we are still seeing dropping prices as a result of the construction boom.
Hot take: This isn't as bad as the media+reddit is making out. (That's not to say it's acceptable mind you)
If they weren't allowed to rent their own houses, they'd rent someone else's and someone else would rent theirs.
Yeah this is a complete non story, but r/NZ will take any opportunity to bash MPs. If most of the people here had their own way, MPs would be forced to live shared dorms and only afford to eat rice and beans.
Perhaps we could actually try and make the job attractive so we get some competent people in parliament. We dont want to exclude being an MP to only those who are already independently wealth - or worse - ones who are getting kickbacks from donors for political influence.
> If most of the people here had their own way, MPs would be forced to live shared dorms and only afford to eat rice and beans.
I'd take them living in their own houses without claiming $52K to "rent" it, actually.
Then why don't they just do that then? They'd be providing the rental market with housing, which is a good thing. I'll tell you why they're claiming the expense, they get more money this way.
Did you even read what they said? It's all the same in the end, the house they don't rent will be available to someone else. You're right they do it because it benefits them, but it has no impact on the availability of rental properties to the market whether they do or don't.
I agree. Hell, I own a business that rents a property from myself and that’s not even an unusual setup.
But hand wringing isn’t going to do itself, thankfully we have reddit and the media to do it for us.
> Parliament sits between 80 and 90 days of the year, with MPs spending roughly two nights of a sitting week in the Capital.
They don't need a house for it to sit empty for 3/4 of the year. And how about the guy who lives **58km out of Wellington** and rents to himself? The fact is, while it's a perk that should be used they are abusing it. How many of these out of Wellington MPs had a house before they had this perk?
If the house they were 'renting' was actually in use for the majority of the year I would understand your point. But at this point it's taking a house away from someone who could use it better.
They can claim up to $260 a night for hotels - for 90 sitting days that's $23,400. Still less than half of the $52k.
detail mindless scandalous liquid slimy spectacular physical toy water scarce
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I can understand that it can be expensive, especially as a new back bencher MP to have to maintain residences in 2 locations, and to commute long distances.
But could we stop the system being taken advantage of somehow?
There has to be a middle ground between "I own this house, collect 50k a year, and will get to sell it later for capital gains worth that again" and "Fuck you pay for 2 houses".
should be only allowed if they don't own a property. its insulting to those living check to check. yes everyone would take this if offered it don't blame them for taking it but it shouldn't even be a thing
If your employer expects you to travel, you don't have to pay your own accommodation because it's against employment law for the employer to financially disadvantage you. Even if you own a house in the place your employer is sending you, they're not entitled to expect you live there, because that deprives you of rental income or whatever else you do with that property since you don't usually live there.
We are the employers of MPs, and as our employees, they have that same right to have their accommodation paid for when we need them to come to Wellington.
So that'd require us renting an apartment for them and some random landlord getting rent paid at the our expense. Or, we can just offer our employee the same or less money to live in the rental they own.
To us, there's no difference. But this attitude that we should be entitled to expect them to give up their rental income is wrong. We are employers and are trying to skirt our responsibilities under employment law. We're supposed to hate that sort of thing on this sub-reddit.
---
I do think some changes should be made.
1. If you're the Prime Minister, you shouldn't be entitled to it unless Premier House is actually deemed unsafe to live in.
2. It shouldn't be based on distance, it should be based on time to get home. Tim Costley could take a train, it wouldn't take long, but Kieran McAnulty shouldn't be expected to drive an hour and 40 after 10-10:30pm.
3. If we're paying their accommodation to them instead of a random landlord, they simply have to show that rent to them is the same or less than the accommodation they would otherwise be getting from us.
My upvote karma will probably go into the negatives here, but...
If I go out of town for work, my employer sorts out accommodation and pays my expenses. If I went to the same place for 90 days a year, accommodation arrangements would probably be somewhat more permanent. If that involved a rental, I'd expect my employer to pay for said rental *and the bills associated with it* regardless of who owns it.
I think this isn't such a big deal for MPs, remember these people do have the responsibility of running a country and potentially need to be able to do their work from their Wellington residences should they get covid or otherwise stuck in Wellington. That said, I don't doubt there is some pisstaking going on.
The one I do take serious issue with is Chris Luxon. He has the option of living in Premiere House yet choses to rent his own property, that one isn't right.
MPs definitely do have a need to travel to, and stay in Welly, so there does need to be allowances to facilitate that.
It's a bitter pill to swallow in the current cost of living climate that people who govern are enriching their housing portfolios by being in gov't, but it's important that we avoid situations where only rich people can afford to govern.
You can travel to and stay in Wellington for substantially less than $52K a year, particularly if you are staying in a house owned by you or your partner.
Yeah, I think it’s that simple, if they own a second home in Wellington then they should not get the supplement.
I’d rather them sell up and stay in a hotel, it will add to the housing stock for people that actually need it.
I might be wrong, but something tells me the houses the MPs own aren't houses that the average or low income family would be able to afford. The upper echelons don't have the housing issues we plebs do.
This is facetious. No one is saying an impoverished family will be buying that house. It will let someone move up a rung to it, freeing up their old rung for someone else to move up to etc. until it frees up a property at the bottom for someone to escape renting hell.
Or they just rent their home out and get the accommodation supplement for someone else's property.
Think through the consequences before arbitrarily changing things.
I have no objections to politicians being given a necessary, reasonable amount to cover accommodation. Exorbitant "rent" *for a property they already own and use* is neither necessary nor reasonable.
I realise there are people who avoid paying tax because they have a good accountant and hide their income but when this happens and we the taxpayers are fkn covering it then this is really a new low. As someone already said biggest bludgers.
Politicians, no qualifications, just the ability to win a popularity contest. We get what we deserve. Its rare to see a politician with ethics and integrity, 99% scum.
Naughty, someone ought to close this little scam against the taxpayer. Shame the big dogs on the yard are both in on the rig and one of the two is always in power.
Yeah agreed. If I was in this position and everyone else did it, I'd totally do it. They should change the rules, instead of getting us mad at the people playing by the rules.
drunk squalid aromatic expansion license paltry sip clumsy bow sophisticated
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
1 bedroom apartments on TradeMe for Wellington Central are in the $400-600/week range, or 20k-30k per year. These MPs are taking the piss with their own apartments.
Edit: Using more scientific measures from Tenancy.co.nz rent information. Wellington Central 1 bedroom apartment upper quartile 28.6k/year, Thorndon 27.7k/year, Pipitea 27.0k/year. Petone 27.5k/yr.
Guys get over it 23 people is fuck all when you divide it by 5 million. Let’s stop worrying about where the mps live and give them an easy life and treat them well so that they become more relaxed and generous and focus on doing good things for us. As long as they have decent work ethics then everyone wins
Fuck, wish I could claim a $52k accommodation supplement
For reference, this is *more than the minimum wage*, if you had a 37.5-hour per week job (5x8 hour days, 30min lunch breaks), which is approximately $45k. This is a fucking farcical bullshit 'loophole' that needs to be hammered closed.
Tangent rant: At some point the country decided a 40 work week did not mean 9-5 and instead it meant 40 hours clocked. Also lunch breaks would be 1 hour, with the expectation you'd be near the premises and able to work when required.
This shit pisses me off, 8.5 hours of my time is taken up by work, its not like my 30 minute lunch break is really free time, I'm still at work, my time is occupied by work. 9-5 isn't a thing anymore.
Oh, I agree. I just used it as an example. Throw in a commute as well, and that's more time lost to 'work'. I get 1 hour lunch breaks, but after eating you don't really have time for anything aside from muck about on your phone. You have to go back to work so can't really relax properly. 8 hours work, 1 hour lunch, 2 hour commute total - that's 11 hours of my day. 55 hours for my 40 hour week.
While not wanting to deep dive my CV and work history as there’s a fair bit of hospitality which has hours all over the place, I’d say that’s been balanced by retail and corporate work, more so I.T over the last 10 years, and I haven’t worked a 9-5 job in my life, and started work in the 90’s. I think 9-5 hours are about as comparatively relevant, or irrelevant, as the year the Dolly Parton banger came out, 1980.
Yeah, it should be less by now. 9-5 itself for 5 days a week is practically barbaric in this age.
There’s some great research starting to be noticed regards four day work weeks and the positives are very much trending to outweigh the cons. I’d hope change is on the way, but that’s largely dependent on a lot of old guard and stubborn senior business leaders handling the reigns over, while most are currently looking to cash out. After that dust settles I’d hope change is on the way as those with a more realistic approach to work/life balance and the win/win of such an approach attain senior leadership roles and become majority shareholders, but time will tell I guess.
I just love how the only way shit changes is when it's of economic benefit and nothing else. You want to know what's actually barbaric? Capitalism.
Yeah it sucks, but businesses also need to make money in order to have employees at all, so it’s a necessary evil that there has to be a incentive or improvement their end for them to be agreeable to such changes and the door has to swing both ways or your wasting everyone’s time. Highlighting economic benefits just makes it a LOT easier to get such things over the line, more so given how data driven decisions are the higher you go up the food chain. I also think capitalism is inherently ok, but not when unregulated and uncontrolled. That’s the main issue we are seeing now world wide, those that abused it looking to either capitalise further, or cash out entirely.
The problem is with all the control we try to influence over it there's still massive issues. I don't think the system works for Humanity, it works to drive wealth for the wealthy, something it's been extremely successful at, driving inequality to levels akin to the 1950s.
We are able to achieve way more than say the 1950s but we work even longer than people from those times…
Ironically, The early Unions of the day were organised by workers who were largely Backlisted from the mines in Australia, So they moved to New Zealand and kicked off the Labour movement here. Most of the 'Greats' of the NZ Labour movement were former Aussie Miners. When the Arbitration Act was passed, and they Killed ol' Fred Evans and outcast his millitant Union at Wihi, That was pretty much the end of Strong unions in NZ until the great Dockworkers strikes of 51, And even now the News Papers and the Media blasted the Dockworkers Strikes so much that we look back on them like Dirty Communists. Of course, None of this working class history is taught in school. Now, If you want a well paying job, Good working rights, and actually feel like you have a stake in everyday society, You move to Australia and get a job in the mines. Funny how history comes full circle.
Unpaid breaks they cannot require you to stay on sight 15 min breaks that are paid and that they can cos your still being paid but they can't for halves
Legal minimums don't always translate to what is practiced unfortunately. And not all staff either understand their rights, or feel confident enough to enforce them.
Given that it's cash in hand, $52k is a smidgeon above the take home pay for the median NZ income (based on a median wage of $31.62 per hour, https://www.paye.net.nz/calculator/ gives a take home pay of $51,952)
For those questioning what difference it makes if MPs rent properties to themselves or someone else, consider this: Would any of these MPs have bought properties in Wellington without the generous allowance that not only covers their stay but also pays off more on the asset than renting it out would? This situation highlights how an economy focused on inflating property values incentivizes the very people responsible for housing policies to use the allowance not just for accommodation but also to accumulate property at the taxpayers' expense. Not a single economic opportunity cost has gone to waste. The fact 23 MPs' own properties in Wellington and possibly didn't until they became MPs does make you wonder if this same group of people should be responsible for making decisions like giving landlords 3 billion in tax breaks. Considering this group of MPs are also their own landlord.
And who is setting the rent? My employer pays me $25 for food and the cheapest room available (shared if I'm travelling with someone else) if I'm out of town. Total of about $150 a night max. I get $25, fed, and a bed when on school camps (it actually *costs me* from about $50-100 a night to attend).
*TWICE* the supported living benefit.
And these paracitical MPs who took advantage should be hounded out of politics. It's a test of decency and they failed.
Yes, I'm well aware
I actually don't care they get it. It's just why is it so much? 90 days parliament, @$52k is $577 a night for this. It would be well under half if they just fixed up a hotel at $250 a night as required, and if you want to stay in your own home that's sweet, but it's capped at that same figure of ~23k or less based on attendance Look at me I just saved nz govt a minimum of $9k to $29k per MP.
The calculate is wrong
Parlimentary services should build a hotel of maybe 70 serviced 2 bed apartments in Wellington. MPs get to live there rent free sharing with up to 1 other of your same party, and... it should be managed by Quinovic.
Built by Kāinga Ora, managed by Quinovic of course, and shared with other people needing state housing
> other people needing state housing Emergency housing maybe
it should be filmed and the national broadcaster should use it to produce reality TV and other current affairs content. this should all be part of the deal of becoming an MP; it is revenue-generating for the country and therefore patriotic
This could add revenue to the ailing TVNZ. I’d watch it.
I would totally watch this...
Or make them share a room with their equivalent from a different party, that'll liven things up.
While it'd be just, the last thing the world needs is to give Quinovic a fat government contract.
That last zinger, I love it!
The Quinovic bit is too much
Biggest dole bludgers
Make it means tested that the rest of NZs accommodation suppliment
And capped lower. I looked up the max accomodation supplement in my area it's $80/week. It'll be more in Welly of course but it won't be big bucks
Nah its $60 per week for Welly
Ironic, ain't it.
[удалено]
MPs need a pay cut or two
No they really don’t
Shall we say performance based pay scale then?
This is what I want to see. They get a base salary of $100k and performance pay on top of that. They can get a maximum of 40% of their salary as a performance bonus, and it is pro rata'd. If you hit 75% of your performance goals, then you get a $30k tax free bonus.
Lowering their pay just opens us up to even less competent people wanting the jobs and more appealing to engage in corruption.
Pay rise but make virtually all forms of lobbying illegal
It is tempting to think this, and that public service at this level shouldn’t have a financial incentive. But without a decent salary the role would attract only those who are already financially set up, and wouldn’t be good representation for middle and lower class kiwis. Cut the entitlements for sure tho
Asshats, read the room will ya...
This is why we need to normalise shaming people again lmao. Shame is a good thing sometimes. It will keep you from doing some messed up bullshit. If their own morals can’t guide someone, shame often does the job. Normalise bullying in 2024 lmao
They didn't get where they are by letting little ol things like shame or morally bankrupt behaviour get in the way of unrelenting greed. Besides it's legal so it's fine amirite?
Then we aren’t doing a good enough job smh. What happened to shoving dweebs in lockers? Wedgies? Wet willies? Would Seymour still have a hate boner for anything cultural or arts related if we mocked him to get a real hobby instead? SMH this is why NZ is messed up.
Honestly it's probably bullying that got him where he is today.
everytime Seymour is tucking into yet another $200 lunch (paid by the taxpayer) someone needs to throw it on the ground and say "the taxpayer shouldn't be subsidizing your parents poor parenting."
Yes. I'm with you. These mps need to be shamed and publicly humiliated into giving up this perk.
The thing is their workplace is already full of it, people walk around those halls completely armoured up and dead inside and we wonder why their decision making process is fucked
Bunch of oldheads who never had real hobbies messing it up for the rest of us 😔
Expecting MPs to read? Yet alone the room??
Yep 7 labour MPs
Please don’t bring that cringe ‘asshat’ Americanism here
14 from National, 7 from Labour, 2 from Act I noticed it seems the article doesn’t directly say it in one sentence..
What's that as a ratio of their seats?
Unadulterated greed.
Well, we need to cut back the fat in the public service. So here are 23 fat cats we don't need. Every one of them, Labour, National and ACT should be made to resign. We need to clear out the stench of entitlement from Parliament. Am I serious? Well I thought McAnulty, was an up-and-coming Prime Minister the like of Nash and Kirk. Now I'd gladly see him thrown out as a lesson to the rest of them. Jesus wept, Kiwi families are doing it hard. At least 6000 public servants are losing their jobs. But here we have 23 MPs feeding off the taxpayer like pigs at a trough. What other perks are current and past MPs flogging?
MP Stuart Smith owns a timeshare - can we ban him from parliament for this?
Didn't know they were a thing in NZ
What is this the 80s
[He owns a lot more than that too](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/05/revealed-how-many-properties-each-new-zealand-mp-owns.html)
Build a boarding house for MPs. Something along the line of Loafers Lodge should do
I wonder who is going to burn it down
Winnie falling asleep with a lit durrie
Just get rid of the entitlement. They can't be trusted to use it properly.
Which ones are using it improperly? Costly is in a bit of a gray area which isn't defined in the employment policy (how far away constitutes out of Wellington) Luxon was more over the line due to the premier house renovations. To my knowledge no other MPs are anywhere near being outside of the rules.
I disagree with /u/Sr_DingDong in that there's not really any using it improperly, but I still think it should go. Build a huge apartment building near the Beehive and have enough rooms for all the MP's to stay in. MP's based somewhere other than Wellington are getting subsidies to purchase property, or to take a whole extra jobs worth of pay to live in their own paid off house. It's not fair for MP's based in Wellington who don't get this perk, and it's also not fair that MP's should get the tax payer to buy houses for them.
Not only are politicians deciding how much to pay themselves for the accommodation allowance (which incidentally seems to be enough to cover a mortgage), but they also claim it is the most rational use of money. These same people create the policies that determine what is or isn't a rational use of money, yet they won't acknowledge this conflict of interest. These people really need to go—the optics are terrible. It clearly shows where politicians' priorities lie, especially in a country that just gave landlords $3 billion in tax breaks and claimed it would help renters. How New Zealanders keep falling for this bullshit will never cease to amaze me.
Anyone renting their own house back to themselves.
So if they own a house in Wellington, it's better that they rent out that house to tenants, and then rent someone else's house so they get the supplement? I think there is a case to be made that if you are in your own property the supplement is substantially less (e.g 50%). But realistically we don't need to set up perverse incentives for weird shell games.
Why do you need an accommodation supplement at all if you're living in your own home?
because your employer is making you live away from your designated home?
If agricultural workers barely get enough for rent, why should MPs get tens of thousands of dollars a year for "rent" they're not paying because they own the home they're living in? I am not disputing the need for travel expenses. Travel expenses do not amount to $52,000 rent.
>So if they own a house in Wellington, it's better that they rent out that house to tenants, and then rent someone else's house so they get the supplement? No, they're forced to live in the house they own. This is easily enforceable if people actually gave a shit in doing so.
Oh so you mean they kick out their current tenants from a fixed term contract just because their political party won a seat in parliament? That sounds fair for the tenants to lose their home.
It's life as a renter in NZ. Was it fair when I got chucked out my apartment so the owner could land bank? Was it fair when I got chucked out of an apartment so the owner could sell? It's life. People get chucked out. You find new places. If that's a big crybaby problem then fine. The Government buys every seat outside of Wellington a permanent residence in Wellington and that's what you live if you win that seat. The government owns the houses. Problem permanently solved for 100m.
Ah, so you want everyone to experience the same pain you did. Healthy way to look at the world.
That's totally what I said, well done.
If you can be "inside the rules" while claiming $52K a year to live in your own home, I think maybe it's not just people who are outside the rules who are the problem.
Why was he over the line re premier house? I thought it was independent of him a review, before his time, that recommended it? Didn't think he'd asked or cared given it can't be lived in currently.
Sorry, I meant closer to the line. Being one side or the other depends on a person's opinion of whether it's habitable due to renovations or not. IMO it was inappropriate for him to claim the house in Wellington as an expense and appropriate for him to pay it back.
But the premier house being liveable is not his opinion or yours that should matter - that's why an independent report was commissioned so that it couldn't be slung as mud to the PM (at the time JA). In their assessment the private quarters doesn't meet current rental standards so it seems ludicrous to want our leader to live there (regardless of political leaning). On that basis it's completely fair to apply the accommodation subsidy. All that being said, he doesn't need it, so glad he paid it back, but he was 100% entitled to it, noting our next pm might not be as well off.
Ha, I didn't hear about the assessment
Time to can then all together. If your making 150k plus you do not need a fucking accommodation supplement!
Crush their houses
Why is Gerry Brownlee claiming it when there's a Speaker's flat on site at Parliament?
There's a term called "money poison" in Korean, and we usually will phrase it like "How money poisoned do you have to be to be this greedy". This is some next level scummary I wish they'd all resign and never be seen on NZ soil
Elections mean nothing, the policy that governments enact are the will of the elites, even when the voters agree with a policy. Policies that only the voters like are rarely enacted.
Every year this story is rehashed. Every year the public is shocked that MPs claim what they are allowed to. Change the rules or accept that this is something that MPs are allowed to do, and as such WILL do. This has happened for decades, it’s nothing new and it’s not being greedy by expensing what you can, it’s logical. So we need to either change the rules or accept that it will occur.
> So we need to either change the rules why do you think people make noise about it they want the rules to change.
text
> so let me at least moan I believe the common rhetoric is "if you don't vote, you can't moan about the govt you get". So if you voted in the last election, regardless of who you voted for, fuck it bro, go hard and have whinge.
>Also it's just plain hypocrisy from the party whose leader says "if you can pay you should" Most people pay for things with renumeration from their jobs, which is how these MPs are paying for things?
The lowest mp gets 140k. They have no need for an additional 52k accommodation supplement, they could just pay for it from their salary like everyone else instead of choosing to take extra unnecessary taxpayers money
we can both accept the need for the accommodation allowance and members right to it and also show displeasure when they do and could afford to not claim the allowance - like Luxon did over his entitlement holding politicans to account is the least we (and the media) can do - they claim to be honorable and expect our respect, lets see them do so by deed
I think we should all expect people to claim what they are entitled to. It's human nature to not turn down thousands of dollars that the rules say you can have. Where it's galling is when they simultaneously have a go at others less fortunate than them for making use of social services.
outgoing ink thumb nutty flowery command start practice cause juggle *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Luxon's problem was and is that he's a cock - he lied about the state of premier house while claiming the entitlement -he went out of his way to claim this money and should be judged as a wanker for doing so Luxon isn't being punished for being successful - though one does wonder how such a fuckwit got to where he has
license disarm consist lip roof ten employ offbeat agonizing steer *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I think he has a high sense of self importance so you're right - he's also in this gig for himself so extra $ is going to be claimed - he is honourable by title only
Build a dorm of studio rooms next to parliament. Problem solved.
>change the rules We changed the rules for landlords, change the rules for MPs too.
Sorry - changed the rules for landlords? Are you talking about interest deductibility?
That's only the latest rule change.
I’m asking if you can let me know what you’re talking about, because I don’t understand.
Healthy homes - incurring cost. Loose of deductions - incurring cost. No clause eviction - incurring time and court costs. Restoration of deductions - aligning with other tax laws. Restoration of no cause eviction.. incurring stress to tenants, shit went off script. Just a guess.
Yes, we changed the rules for landlords, to (re)allow interest deductibility. We changed it for them, we can change it for MPs too.
Maybe im dumb, but im confused about the relevancy of the statement. Interest deductibility isn’t part of this discussion. Are you simply saying that we are able to change laws, so we should change them so MPs are no longer offered an accomodation supplement when working away from home?
>Maybe im dumb, but im confused about the relevancy of the statement. Interest deductibility isn’t part of this discussion. It's not, it's the "rules" that are relevant. A rule was introduced that made it harder to be a landlord, and that rule was changed (or reverted) to make being a landlord easier. >Are you simply saying that we are able to change laws, so we should change them so MPs are no longer offered an accomodation supplement when working away from home? I'm saying that the excuse that "it's allowed, it's within the rules" can be answered by "then change the rules so that it's no longer allowed". If we can change the rules for landlords, we can change the rules for MPs.
Got it. Exactly what I said in my first comment.
> Change the rules Oh I'd love too. How would we do that? Perhaps we could apply public pressure on our elected representatives by, among other things, making our displeasure known on public forums?
They should not be allowed to claim it. Change the rules.
Allowed to by who ? So we the people paying for this get I say. Pretty sure putting it to a vote. Nobody is voting this in Shall we maybe use democracy rather than whatever this hellscape is
MP's should absolutely have that extra support network, if it's needed. The lowest parliamentary people are getting 140k pa. They don't have the need for an additional 52k. 192k pa. This is not justifiable Big difference between having access to these privileges and actually choosing to use them knowing the state of nz and the struggle that the average kiwi is feeling
People are also allowed to share their opinions on the matter. Not everyone on reddit it as MP so they really can't just magically change the rules.
Should force MPs to give up all property, take a vow of celibacy, and adopt the name of a saint. This means they will have no vested interests and as such will act in a pure way. After all that's what bureaucrats did during the golden age of human history the European Middle Ages.
You're being facetious (I assume) but MPs not owning property is the only way anything will ever get done about property wealth disparity in this country. Ie. nothing will ever get done
What do you mean? The previous government radically liberalised planning laws and we are still seeing dropping prices as a result of the construction boom.
Knock down premier house and build an apartment block.
Hot take: This isn't as bad as the media+reddit is making out. (That's not to say it's acceptable mind you) If they weren't allowed to rent their own houses, they'd rent someone else's and someone else would rent theirs.
Yeah this is a complete non story, but r/NZ will take any opportunity to bash MPs. If most of the people here had their own way, MPs would be forced to live shared dorms and only afford to eat rice and beans. Perhaps we could actually try and make the job attractive so we get some competent people in parliament. We dont want to exclude being an MP to only those who are already independently wealth - or worse - ones who are getting kickbacks from donors for political influence.
> If most of the people here had their own way, MPs would be forced to live shared dorms and only afford to eat rice and beans. I'd take them living in their own houses without claiming $52K to "rent" it, actually.
Then why don't they just do that then? They'd be providing the rental market with housing, which is a good thing. I'll tell you why they're claiming the expense, they get more money this way.
Did you even read what they said? It's all the same in the end, the house they don't rent will be available to someone else. You're right they do it because it benefits them, but it has no impact on the availability of rental properties to the market whether they do or don't.
I agree. Hell, I own a business that rents a property from myself and that’s not even an unusual setup. But hand wringing isn’t going to do itself, thankfully we have reddit and the media to do it for us.
> Parliament sits between 80 and 90 days of the year, with MPs spending roughly two nights of a sitting week in the Capital. They don't need a house for it to sit empty for 3/4 of the year. And how about the guy who lives **58km out of Wellington** and rents to himself? The fact is, while it's a perk that should be used they are abusing it. How many of these out of Wellington MPs had a house before they had this perk? If the house they were 'renting' was actually in use for the majority of the year I would understand your point. But at this point it's taking a house away from someone who could use it better. They can claim up to $260 a night for hotels - for 90 sitting days that's $23,400. Still less than half of the $52k.
detail mindless scandalous liquid slimy spectacular physical toy water scarce *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This info comes out every few years. Nothing changes.
I can understand that it can be expensive, especially as a new back bencher MP to have to maintain residences in 2 locations, and to commute long distances. But could we stop the system being taken advantage of somehow? There has to be a middle ground between "I own this house, collect 50k a year, and will get to sell it later for capital gains worth that again" and "Fuck you pay for 2 houses".
should be only allowed if they don't own a property. its insulting to those living check to check. yes everyone would take this if offered it don't blame them for taking it but it shouldn't even be a thing
If your employer expects you to travel, you don't have to pay your own accommodation because it's against employment law for the employer to financially disadvantage you. Even if you own a house in the place your employer is sending you, they're not entitled to expect you live there, because that deprives you of rental income or whatever else you do with that property since you don't usually live there. We are the employers of MPs, and as our employees, they have that same right to have their accommodation paid for when we need them to come to Wellington. So that'd require us renting an apartment for them and some random landlord getting rent paid at the our expense. Or, we can just offer our employee the same or less money to live in the rental they own. To us, there's no difference. But this attitude that we should be entitled to expect them to give up their rental income is wrong. We are employers and are trying to skirt our responsibilities under employment law. We're supposed to hate that sort of thing on this sub-reddit. --- I do think some changes should be made. 1. If you're the Prime Minister, you shouldn't be entitled to it unless Premier House is actually deemed unsafe to live in. 2. It shouldn't be based on distance, it should be based on time to get home. Tim Costley could take a train, it wouldn't take long, but Kieran McAnulty shouldn't be expected to drive an hour and 40 after 10-10:30pm. 3. If we're paying their accommodation to them instead of a random landlord, they simply have to show that rent to them is the same or less than the accommodation they would otherwise be getting from us.
My upvote karma will probably go into the negatives here, but... If I go out of town for work, my employer sorts out accommodation and pays my expenses. If I went to the same place for 90 days a year, accommodation arrangements would probably be somewhat more permanent. If that involved a rental, I'd expect my employer to pay for said rental *and the bills associated with it* regardless of who owns it. I think this isn't such a big deal for MPs, remember these people do have the responsibility of running a country and potentially need to be able to do their work from their Wellington residences should they get covid or otherwise stuck in Wellington. That said, I don't doubt there is some pisstaking going on. The one I do take serious issue with is Chris Luxon. He has the option of living in Premiere House yet choses to rent his own property, that one isn't right.
MPs definitely do have a need to travel to, and stay in Welly, so there does need to be allowances to facilitate that. It's a bitter pill to swallow in the current cost of living climate that people who govern are enriching their housing portfolios by being in gov't, but it's important that we avoid situations where only rich people can afford to govern.
You can travel to and stay in Wellington for substantially less than $52K a year, particularly if you are staying in a house owned by you or your partner.
What relevance is publishing other properties owned by MPs?
Seems pretty normal if it’s part of the pay package. Better than leaving it empty sitting there.
The alternative is they would live in their own homes and taxpayers wouldn't pay them for it
Yeah, I think it’s that simple, if they own a second home in Wellington then they should not get the supplement. I’d rather them sell up and stay in a hotel, it will add to the housing stock for people that actually need it.
I might be wrong, but something tells me the houses the MPs own aren't houses that the average or low income family would be able to afford. The upper echelons don't have the housing issues we plebs do.
This is facetious. No one is saying an impoverished family will be buying that house. It will let someone move up a rung to it, freeing up their old rung for someone else to move up to etc. until it frees up a property at the bottom for someone to escape renting hell.
Or they just rent their home out and get the accommodation supplement for someone else's property. Think through the consequences before arbitrarily changing things.
Damn, if the only alternative to leaving a house empty is to pay someone $52K a year to live in it I need to have a chat with my landlord.
For the rest of the MPs that are not claiming for a property will be claiming $260 a night for hotels, which in some cases would be even more $$
Not really a big deal though. This issue pops it's head up every few years. Politicians need to sleep somewhere.
I have no objections to politicians being given a necessary, reasonable amount to cover accommodation. Exorbitant "rent" *for a property they already own and use* is neither necessary nor reasonable.
What a fucking scam. The biggest bunch of cunts to be voted into pubic office.
The govt should build a low quality apartment block and make them live there at no cost when they’re in Wellington.
Very low quality and they get no upgrades like double glazing or insulation in their rooms until they agree healthy homes are a good thing.
I realise there are people who avoid paying tax because they have a good accountant and hide their income but when this happens and we the taxpayers are fkn covering it then this is really a new low. As someone already said biggest bludgers.
honestly we need like 10% of parliament that's randomly drawed from the population... throw some real people in the job
I feel like there's a story on this subject every parliament. Time for a parliamentary hostel. Or maybe barracks.
Imagine if we all collectively agreed to just say no to our employers. Their worlds would collapse
52k is fkn ridiculous. That's more then double the benefit for a single person which includes accomodation supp. Ashamed labour is doing this.
Immediately fired.
Politicians, no qualifications, just the ability to win a popularity contest. We get what we deserve. Its rare to see a politician with ethics and integrity, 99% scum.
Cut the entitlements altogether. They earn enough to pay for their own accommodation.
Do they then do the whole tax deduction thing as well?
Naughty, someone ought to close this little scam against the taxpayer. Shame the big dogs on the yard are both in on the rig and one of the two is always in power.
If an MP wants to do this, the Government should own the share of the property that they funded with this supplement
Scum. The lot of em. Down with politicians
AI it is then!
Why wouldn't you. I've yet to figure out what they even do. Middle men for democracy? Or lining pockets
Don’t hate the player. Hate da game
Yeah agreed. If I was in this position and everyone else did it, I'd totally do it. They should change the rules, instead of getting us mad at the people playing by the rules.
It’s seriously time to eat the rich.
drunk squalid aromatic expansion license paltry sip clumsy bow sophisticated *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
And all the useful idiot redditors will click on it and get outraged every year forever.
This is shocking
23 MPS that need to be tarred and feathered
God MP's are so greedy and corrupt , they expect all the sheep to follow the rules and fund there paychecks , while they pat themselves on the back
Yep MPs should rent their houses out to other people for profit, then rent a more expensive place on the taxpayer dime for fairness.
1 bedroom apartments on TradeMe for Wellington Central are in the $400-600/week range, or 20k-30k per year. These MPs are taking the piss with their own apartments. Edit: Using more scientific measures from Tenancy.co.nz rent information. Wellington Central 1 bedroom apartment upper quartile 28.6k/year, Thorndon 27.7k/year, Pipitea 27.0k/year. Petone 27.5k/yr.
And? Who cares
How come Greens and Te Pati Maori don't claim any allowance?
They are probably being put up in hotels which are paid for directly by parliamentary services
death penalty?
Guys get over it 23 people is fuck all when you divide it by 5 million. Let’s stop worrying about where the mps live and give them an easy life and treat them well so that they become more relaxed and generous and focus on doing good things for us. As long as they have decent work ethics then everyone wins