Some thoughts on issues you have raised.

1. We have certain public housing available which can be used by the PM, deputy, GG and or a few of the Ministers. So it would be a waste of assets not to make them available to these public office holders (or public servants – Chief Justice/Supreme Court judges etc).

This does not mean that those with homes in Wellington already should be paid if they choose not use these public state owned homes.

If the deputy PM from Dipton was himself serious about this line of argument (which John Key provided some time back) he would have made it himself to justify keeping the money.

2. The technical criteria of the allowance is having to meet the extra cost of housing in Wellington because of the expectation of the MP meeting the primary cost of having family home in the electorate out of their salary as others do. Now I disagree with this, but it is the current criteria.

{I think every out of Wellington electorate MP should be paid $24,000 pa housing allowance for the costs of having two houses – a place in their electorate and a place in Wellington – and the same amount applying for Ministers).

What home does Bill English own “with his family” outside of Wellington? His only home outside of Wellington appears to be the English family farm – presumably co-owned with his siblings or in the ownership of some family Trust (not the owned home of him and his wife and children).

So in every sense he is not providing for the cost of a home outside of Wellington (does any English Family Trust really charge him or other members of his birth family for staying there – are they ever there together and if so for how long each year?).

The idea that the taxpayer was meeting the only housing (and cleaning bills) cost he and his family actually had – when both he and his wife had large salaries is a little disconcerting to the wider public.

The only defence he had (John Key made it) was that he could have taken a public house and rented out the Karori home and thus should be paid for staying in his Karori home if that house was more suitable for his family. The problem is that the compensation to out of electorate MP’s was not designed for this purpose.

The other question is about whether he should have received the money in the past. Speakers accepted his line about his primary residence being Dipton. I think that’s not the case.

I do agree with the Finance Minister that his circumstance is outside the norm and thus problematic. I think the rules do need to be changed/simplified.

MP’s and Ministers getting the $24,000 allowance to cover need to afford two places of accommodation (if rental *2 or rental + mortgage).

Bill English would not qualify if he had no costs for “his Dipton home” out of his salary.

If the out of Wellington electorate MP/Minister owned a home in both the electorate and Wellington – I would time limit the $24,000 allowance to 10 years from the point of owning two homes.

3. If Mr English is fully accountable and in that shown to have operated within the law then I see no particular problem with him staying in his position. But I do not think he (and possibly a few others) should have received the allowance. And under my proposed rules a few others would miss out as well (many of the longer serving MP’s would end upowning a number of properties)

PS John Key noted that one could still rort my proposed system by owning a second property outside of Wellington and still claiming the allowance via having a rental in Wellington (or their electorate) – if only this lot were as competent in spotting and adopting good government policy as the opportunity for a personal profit. But this would only apply to long term electorate MP’s aspiring to Ministerial office and one could have an associated register for properties owned by Ministers of the Crown directly or via Trusts to see who was out to rort the system.

The Deputy Prime Minister of a state is entitled to the state contributing to his official residence.

But this is his private residence, as you acknowledge when bleating about the fact that the media have been pointing cameras at it.

An ‘official residence’ is a house usually owned by the crown, which the holder of an office is entitled to be housed in. That’s why it’s called an official residence. If Bill wanted to live in one, of course he could and one would be made available. But he chooses not to.

All the bluster about how Nat’s could earn more in the private sector, is again, irrelevant. They weren’t drafted into office, they chose to stand. Bill represents a solidly blue electorate. For all intents and purposes the job is his as long as he wants it. That probably played some part in his decision to buy a property in wellington and move there.

Related, all the talk about Dipton being his ancestral home where some of his kids went to school and so on, while true, is irrelevant. The test is not, ‘where is the home of your heart?’, but ‘where is your current primary place of residence?’ It is an objective test, based in the present tense, about where you would reasonably say a person’s current primary place of residence is. The allowance is not a part of remuneration. It is to recompense costs. Wellington based mp’s or ministers do not get it. It is for people who live in Wellington only when doing their official duties.

You can certainly argue that perhaps that needs to be changed, but National didn’t try changing it.

On the trust, did you read Vernon Small in this morning’s dompost?

Pecuniary interest as defined in the relevant case law includes money going to his family not just English personally. Someone quoted it here a few days ago, didn’t they?

If the trust was not being paid for his house, his family would have less to spend on other things. Things he benefits from as a member of that family.

Just like an extra hours’ taxpayer-funded house-cleaning. What, none of his sprogs know how to work a vacuuum cleaner? They don’t have Jif in southland?

What motivates you so strongly about this issue?

I mean I’ve never seen you here before, but you’ve essentially wallpapered this thread with your passionate defending of Bill English.

It’s quite unusual.

I honestly can’t be bothered reading most of it but what I’ve scanned is pretty spurious stuff (like English not having access to the trust – nice one).

What’s your interest in this matter?

You mean they asked Bill where he lives and Bill said “Dipton”.

And they said “Rawly truly”? And Bill said “Yep, rawly truly”.

I do draw a distinction between the public as employees of a private employer and members of Parliament as employees of the public. As I stated members of Parliament certainly on the Right, and indeed some on the Left, forego a lot of career and personal opportunities as part of their representation.

The price of representation needs to be addressed honestly. Therefore I believe the public should accomodate young families in parliemant. There is no necessity to punish MP’s by separating them from their families, so why do so?

I firmly believe, like the current and all previous Speakers, that the price of parliamentary representation should not be the sacrifice of young families or marriages. I have no problem drawing a distinction between MP’s and everyone else on this for the above reasons. While many MP’s on the Left and some on the Right probably wouldn’t do that well outside parliament, we still elected them, and for the sake of the good ones like Michael Cullen and Key and Clark and English the distinction should be drawn.

The whole point is that Bill has not claimed or suggested a new standard. How can you claim that his expenses are abnormal when where he ‘lives’ is a Legal question, answered by the Parliament, the former and present Speaker and Parliamentary Services as being Dipton? He has recieved and been measured by those institutions against precisely the same standard as every other minister for decades and decades. And he has met the standard. If he meets that legal standard then ipso facto he meets the ethical standard. Because as I say those institutions are the only measuring stick, as you will find when the AG exonerates him. Therefore what he did was not ABNORMAL at all! What he did was actually normal to the point of being banal. That is his entire point, that is why he did nothing wrong, and why it is all incorrect perception.

On that other point if anything to do with MP’s were to be measured as against the standards of the media or the public they would all live in a student hostel and be paid slightly below the average wage. I think this would suit or have suited some of them. However for the sake of my countries dignity I will forego suggesting this seriously. And I do not think it should apply to worthy MP’s of either side. And Bill English is a worthy man and a worthy MP and has a lot of support.

As to family trusts they are a time-honoured and useful means of preserving and protecting property for others. Family trusts written properly are intrinsically altruistic. Although I will admit that a lot of trusts these days are used to keep the husband or wife away from that relationship property… Still don’t throw the bath out with the bath-water.

As I state this is just the price of representation for someone from a far-flung electorate. And relatively it is actually very low in New Zealand. There is a thing that can be loosely termed a power-command ratio. Frances is the highest. And ours is the lowest in the world. In France or Italy this money would be deemed trifling, and this entire issue puzzling, so it is good for people to exercise some perspective as to how important his actually is when people in Samoa are dying and the government is trying to help them, and deal with Climate change and education.

For all the reasons I outline above I believe very strongly like a lot of people that Bill is not stained by this. I am absolutely rock solid that the only questionable period is from 2005 to 2008. This is non-contentious. Otherwise everyone in Parliament who rents or receives Crown contributions from a non-wellington electorate or done so formerly is liable.

Craig you seem like a good fella. I know how trusts work and I can tell you that his trust raises no issues, as the QC pointed out. All we can do is await the Attorney General’s report.

I know it is hard to understand but the Trust is separate from Bill. He is not a beneficiary. Money that goes into the trust is not his entitlement. He cannot access it. He cannot engage with the Trust. He cannot use the trust money to buy his groceries of pay for petrol. It is separate. And moreover it is irrelevant now anyway since there he has foresworn the money despite there being no legal or ethical necessity to do so, other then a public perception that he respects as a man of integrity and sincerity.

If he had truley wanted to maximise his arrangements he could have rented out the family home for well over one thousand dollars a week. He could then have lived in an offical residence with the rent paid for by the taxpayer and the remainder going to him personally. This would have netted him much much more then what he got. And if it was well and truely about the money he would have left all the children in Dipton and cut out the minor policial fallout that attends a successful cabinet minister with a big family who can’t always be in Dipton.

This could go either way. If the AG deems a full investigation necessary which is highly unlikely, he will step down. If she does not, and this issue arises again, it will really open a can of worms because Bill will no longer be defending what he shouldn’t have to but attacking what is now attackable.

Peace

Maybe not, but you’re likely a horrible embarrassment to the well known public figure who shares your name.

And no, as I lay out above,his living arrangments are only questionable on any level at all from 2005. Otherwise any non-wellington electorate MP who rents or receives Crown contributions or has done is similarly culpable. That his wife worked in Wellington for a time and his kids attended school there is not salient. She worked in Lumsden for many years too, and his older kids attended school in southland also for many years. The rule should be that an electorate MP who owns a house in his electorate has that legally his place of residence, end of story. That is in fact the general interpretation of the rules, considering the time all electorate MP’s actually spend away from their electorates, especially high cabinet Ministers.

The only possible time that can be held in question is the period from 2005 until the end of 2008. And for this period to say he has been unethical or illegal would be to retrospectively question not just the Attorney General, and Parliamentary Services, but also the Speaker. As he said, he has done nothing wrong legally, and as a corrolary, nothing wrong ethically, and it is all purely incorrect perception. The cost to the taxpayer would be largely the same regardless of how he arranged his circumstances. Saying he is a bludger for what he has gained via his job is like saying a Priest is a bludger for living in the Presbertery. It is a fundametnal, corrollary part of being a Priest, or an MP. Do you get it???

And that isn’t bluster. That is a fundamental public law and constitutional argument, backed by policy arguments. This is the kind of thing the AG will be considering alongside the particulars of the Trust, given that her decision will have long term ramifications for the Parliament and all MP’s, especially those with families.

Don’t be a jerk-off. As you are probably aware most past ministers of all parties have had children at some stage in during their parliamentary careers. Phil Goff has a few who are now grown up, but who were children during his period in office in the 1980′s. Same with most past ministers. Most have left their families at home, visiting them in the weekend.

What you are referring to is the relative inexperience of the national caucus. They largely have new ministers who have YOUNG children. Are you proposing a NEW standard. Should we apply this to all people who have to move outside their homes to work? I’m sure that employers are going to be happy with that being imposed on them.

But the point is that we pay them a salary for a reason. It is to cover the normal family operations amongst other things. Bill English was abusing a separate system for handling ABNORMAL expenses. Basically he is by the definition of this post, acting corruptly.

On the question of family trusts, I think that the legal basis of these should be abolished. I can’t see any real reason for having them apart from avoiding tax.

1.1 As for the situation as it is from 2005 till the end of 2008, given that 2009 does not count as he as forsworn the supplement and paid back all additions in 2009, the following is pertinent. What you have to remember is that Bill has followed the guidelines to the letter and more laid out by the Attorney General under the previous Labour government. He did not have to sign a letter declaring no pecuniary interest in the Endeavour Trust, but he did so for the sake of proprietary for parliamentary services. The Trust arrangment is monitored by parliamentary services and signed off by the speaker. He received legal advice that it was correct. It was confirmed as correct by the Parliament. It was further signed off by the Speaker. Strictly it is not even in the Attorney Generals Jurisdiction, as this is not a judicial, but a parliamentary matter, but these factors are what the AG will be considering. I cannot see how the AG can deem a full enquiry necessary given the factual and legal circumstances. It is simply impossible. So be clear that that will not occur, otherwise the entire integrity of the parliamentary system is at risk, and everyone else who has followed the rules of the parliament in fairness should be reexamined.

1.2 Be clear in your minds that he had no pecuniary, fiduciary, or beneficial interest in the Trust. That is clear-cut. He is not a trustee. He is not a beneficiary. The money was provided for him as per usual to pay for an official residence that in this case just happened to be his own home. Rather then the cost being direct rent of a ministerial home, it was simply transferred to the cost of the Karori property.

1.2.1 He did not and could not touch that money to do the groceries for instance or pay for his kids school. You need to understand a Trust is a separate legal entity. Bill can’t make the trust do anything, nor can he do anything towards the Trust. Once created it is a separate legal entity. He can’t give Mallard the Trust documents, becuase that is up to the Trustees!

1.2.2If you cry ‘foul’ on this, then realise that there are more then a few hundered thousand trusts operating in New Zealand at the moment. Trusts are a legitimate and ethcially appropriate means to safeguard property for beneficiaries. Far from being a plaything for the rich anyone of any means can easily form,a trust for any number of purposes. All this vitriol about the Trust is pure bollocks. Not just the QC but the Parliament have declared his statements are correct. The AG will also.

2.0 The legal/ethical argument

The Labour party is attempting to run two lines at once. They try and claim he has acted illegally at times when he hasn’t to cofuse the public. Then knowing this is not the case they claim that though he hasn’t acted illegally he has acted unethically. But this is not true. In this case the ethics of the action are corrollary to it’s legality. Saying that what he has done is unethical is tantamount to saying that following the rules laid out by the parliament is unethical. Which is clearly not the case. There is no higher consitutional standard or never-land standards to be applied here. There are only the rules of the parliament. He followed the rules. This is a brief analysis, but understand you pricks that yelling loudly won’t suffice here. I maintain this is a non-story on very solid grounds.

3.0 the family element

3.1 He is correct when he says the system is not set up for him. It is not set up for the National party. The national party has over 20 school age children of Cabinet. The Labour party only had one. If the argument is that his young children can’t attend school in Wellington or see him sometimes in the evenings then be honest. Say that this is to be the cost of representation. Just say that we expect our MP’s to never see their families or take steps to keep their families and marriages intact. MPs are elected representatives, who at least in the National parties case take on public profile and jobs at the price of better private renumeration given their abilities in the private sector. This is certainly the case with Bill. It is all very well for Pete Hodgson to get up and say he goes home every weekend. He has no young children. Nor does anyone in the Labour party. How we treat the families of those in power is how we regard the families of everyone. Phil Goff owns an apartment in Wellington and this is fine. The only difference is the kids. So decide. Should prospective MP’s in small poor communities (And Dipton was poor for many years, and is very small) have to sacrifice their family if they show enough ability to become a Minister. This is a policy issue the Attorney General will address. I think you can see the answer is NO

4.0 The cost to the taxpayer

And consider this. What if he were to actually make this sacrifice and have everyone in Dipton. Say he did keep his 10 year old, his 12 year old, his 15 year old and his 17 year old in Dipton. Say he saw them only on Sunday night as per the above. He would in fact be costing the taxpayer more money. The taxpayer would be paying for all his additional flights, more then 150 extra per year as a bare minimum if you consider 1.5 extra return flights per week. And the taxpayer would be paying his accomodation, in any damn case!

So to conclude, for all the above reasons, and more I could iterate, this is not a matter of yelling loudly defamatory things. They must be based on truth. And the legal and ethical truth is laid out above. So understand you pricks that this story is going to turn, and all this vitriol is not only unnecessary and unwarranted, but based on incorrect premises.

So, if the deputy PM happened to be someone who normally lived in Wellington, they would not get the extra housing money even though they were an ‘official person’. Bill claims that he does not normally live in Wellington, despite obvious evidence to the contrary that he has lived there since 1996.