Written By: - Date published: 1:50 pm, August 1st, 2009 - 160 comments
Categories: corruption, national/act government -
Tags: bill english, roger douglas
NZPA reports:
Taxpayers are contributing nearly $1000 a week to allow deputy prime minister Bill English to live in his own million-dollar Wellington home.
According to the title, the Karori home was bought by Mr English and his wife, Mary, for $800,000 in 2003. However, in March this year the title was transferred to Mrs English alone.
Mary English is a GP in Wellington, their kids go to school there, Bill spends most of his time there. The house in Karori is, in reality, his primary home. Yet he is claiming $1000 a week to live there from the Wellington accommodation allowance. That allowance is meant to compensate non-Wellington-based ministers for the costs of accommodation in the city arising from the need to be there for their work. The Englishes own their Karori home regardless.
National is claiming that it’s not a breach of the rules. Even if that’s the case, it’s clearly a rort and clearly unethical. The movement of ownership out of his name has obviously been done to facilitate the rort.
In 2000, Marian Hobbs and Phillida Bunkle lost their ministerial warrants for a similar rort of the Wellington accommodation allowance. The expenses scandal that has shaken the UK Parliament and seen a number of resignations has also centred around MPs rorting the system around housing allowances.
English doesn’t see anything wrong in his behaviour. Key, no doubt, will be ‘relaxed’.
Once again, we see the Key Government has one rule for themselves and another for the rest of us. At a time when they’re demanding the public accept cutbacks in services, attacking solo mums raising their kids on low incomes while trying to get off the benefit, and joking that there’s no pixie dust to help unemployed they’ve got their noses planted firmly in the public trough themselves.
As dodgy behaviour from minister after minister comes to light, this Key government is rapidly gaining a reputation for corruption and sleaze.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Im picking this will be an issue that will gain traction over the coming weeks.
The ideal situation for Labour is to step back on this one as our own MP’s are less than perfect and we don’t want to give the nacts the chance to spin this onto Labour as they no doubt will.
Leave it up to the media to fan the fires of this taxpayer rort, with No Comment responses from Labour. Let National try and get off this flypaper without our help.
I just hope this has the same effect on the public as in the Uk , alot of these generous perks hark back to a day when politicians pay was well under 100k a year.
Good on Metiria Turei for pushing on this as both major parties will be against changes to this, just like in uk its completely legal but don’t expect the public to think it’s OK when we hear of cuts to the vulnerable and disabled budgets first.
It seems Roger Douglas ideology of less government spending only kicks in after he has got his holidays bills reimbursed, what a James Blunt..
It’s good to see all the facts on the table about this one.
One of the longest and hardest sucks on the state’s teat, and he’s a tax dodger too.
And while we’re on the subject of corruption, hypocrisy and sleaze, there’s Sir Roger Douglas, cheer-leading from the front. Here’s what he said back in February:
So presumably the takeaway message is that free trips to Waiheke for pensioners are bad, but free trips to the UK for politicians of pensionable age are just fine, thanks.
This is the kind of weapons-grade hypocrisy that should be banned by UN treaty.
Yeah, let’s have a round of applause to the citizens of Epsom for that one.
Mind you, I assume he was eligible whether Wodney won or not.
If he wasn’t in parliament now would we have heard of it?
So Bill is being paid $1000 a week by the taxpayer to live with his wife.
Given Treasury advice about the need to realise greater efficiency in the wider public sector, perhaps we should see if others would be prepared to live with her for less. Nice house, free in house medical services …
No no, no no, no no, no. It is to stabilise his family life and we all want a stabilised family life don’t we?
The “zing” of the Guillotine is sounding better every day.
Captcha: bury. LOL.
So it’s outrageous that we pay a woman $700 a week to raise three children, but it’s ok that we pay Mr Bill $1000 a week for nothing at all!
Righties, I want to hear from all of you on this. You must be disgusted. Everyone who’s been banging on about solo mums and the DPB needs to get in here and take a firm stand on this.
vto, where are you on this?
So – Atlas has been caught fondling the crown jewels again. All at a time when NAct is telling us to tighten our belts, and deal with redundancy, benefit cuts and pay-cuts. Same old state cushioning for the elites, and market-discipline for the masses. These people make me sick.
felix – i want Burt to remove his tounge from English’s behind for long enough to give him a verbal tongue lashing on this. Common KBR where are you?
roger
The issue is the rules are written by MP’s for MP’s. Then when they break the rules because it is convenient and expedient complete muppets support them validating themselves.
Look it goes on everywhere. Jolly Jim get’s circa $2,000 a week for being in a separate party while he gives his vote unconditionally to Labour… but it is withing the rules.
Don’t sweat the legal stuff roger, just grow some balls and stand up when they break the law rather than say it’s OK because it is your side doing it.
My opinion for what is is worth: English is taking the piss – but he is doing it with the blessing of the self serving rules all MP enjoys.
wow. that was a long and confused way of saying ‘English is ripping us off but I’m OK with that because he’s on my side’
The only one playing sides is you Marty and some of your fellow standardistas. I will wait with interest but I strongly suspect that the Labour party in parliament will leave this largely to the great unwashed as the issue is the expenses not so much that English is rorting the system.
Having said that, English clearly loses any moral ground around efforts to save costs.
Marty G
I draw a line, is it within the rules. When they break the rules, declare the referee wrong and change the rules to how they like to play – then we have a real problem.
I don’t like how this works as it is blatant snout in the tough. The disclosure of MP’s expenses will bring about change in these areas. Good on National for letting that happen eh – we finally get the new standard of openness and accountability promised many years ago by a prior govt.
To clarify, burt:
You’re ok with it because it’s not illegal?
felix
I’m not really OK with it. That is going to far. English has played within the rules and his party has disclosed what he is up to. Lets see what happens next, what rules get changed by public pressure and which get removed from the reporting list for expediency.
That’s good to hear. Would you go as far as to say he’s a dirty little piggie?
rotfl
And he’s doing it with your money. Isn’t that always the argument when the left spend a little cash? But now that it’s your team spending a lot of our cash for his own personal benefit it’s Ok.
Gee, why am I not surprised.
This is obviously one set of rules that needs tightening up but
burt doesn’t think so as they’re not being broken.
Undoubtedly a bad look. However, politicians of colours have their noses completely in the trough as evidenced by the fact that MAD applied to the travel expenses – neither major party was prepared to attack the other. Agreed also that the Greens come out of this with more credibility.
Why do you think MAD applies? because the newspaper told you so?
The highest accommodation claim from Labour was $12K, less than $500 a week. Half a dozen Nats are claiming $1000 a week. The only one who seems to be out and out abusing the system is English is the worst because he’s claiming for a property his family would own anyway.
With respect eddie, read my comment again. I was referring to the travel figures released yesterday and the lack of comment by either major party was deafening. Indeed, I not that so far that the issue has been driven by the MSM (strange as you are all convinced they are right wing puppets).
Apart from that, the first issue is is it allowable under the rules. It appears to be so but it won’t be the first time that politicians right rules in their own favour.
I have no doubt that the rules need to be changed. I have no doubt that English’s position is in stark contrast to his expectations of Govt agencies.
For all your outrage, it’s the law that is an ass and it needs to be changed for all MP’s
Fair enough, you were talking about travel expenses. My bad.
My reference to the newspaper was that is was in one of them that the MAD reference was made (or was it Colin’s blog?)
I think your comments are fair, except denying the hypocrisy in English’s actions. I think you do have to acknowledge there’s a rort here, even if it falls within the rules that doesn’t make it acceptable.
In the spirit of brotherhood engendered by my LKJ flash backs (thanks Sprout!) yes, it is a rort. Yes, English is compromised because while it is legal, it’s far from a good look for someone in his role.
As I said, get all parties to change the law. No one else gets away with the level of expenses MP’s can claim. We can now see why they don’t want to change it.
I’ll wait to be proven wrong but at this stage, I’ve yet to see Labour jump on the issue for the reasons i”ve outlined.
This sort of thing – transferring ownership or redefining ‘primary’ residence as ‘secondary’ – is precisely the sort of thing which has gotten UK parliamentarians in such trouble in recent months. It should get traction here on that basis.
L
Eternal optimist, Lew. Being pessimistic I expect a bit of spin from the government and the lackeys in media to drop in short order. I hope I’m proved wrong.
Bill English MUST loose his job over this. No if’s, no but’s… no ‘relaxed about it”.
When I think of all the noise National has made over the years about corruption, waste of public monies and so on… this really is the last straw.
Exactly this issue has rolled numerous heads in the British Parliament.
vto, burt, mike…. where are you?
Not got your CT attack lines yet?
They’ll be along once David puts up his post to give them their lines.
I’m predicting it’ll be a bluster reaction ‘what a bunch of rubbish, just wowsers complaining, all legal etc etc’ and the old ‘those bastards did it too and it was awful, so it’s ok that he did it’
burt etc will be in the conference. Farrar will be there too but able to post.
They’ll be flying the research unit back from Christchurch to get started on the digging for the “they did it too” doublespeak misdirection.
All I can say is Key’s big package for youth employment better be a cracker because National are going to struggle to bury this story.
‘Key promises a gazillion youth jobs – programmes will only cost $2450, says PM’
Minimum wage protections for under 20′s scrapped: “nanny state red tape holding back youths’ ambition dealt with in bold move from centrist PM!” thunders Herald editorial.
you fullas and fullesses are funny..
I think you;ll be surprised if you scan the comments under General Debate … not as moderate as my (albeit typically) stifled response.
And my favourite:
I look forward with interest for David Farrer’s defense of Bill English’s rorting of the taxpayer.
Too many quotes, too little time. But here’s one for starters.
Asked in the House about the pay prospects for public sector workers, specifically teachers and nurses, Bill English replied:
“Many New Zealanders see State sector workers as having relatively secure jobs, and would be concerned if the representatives of State sector workers were out of touch with what was going on in the wider community and the private sector. (Hansard, July 2 2009).”
Concerned? Yes Bill, we are.
On one hand MP’s should be paid well thus less need for bribes (?) but when is enough enough? Telecom boss paid millions.
It has been said that by keeping the MP salaries modest, then entitlements make up the real benefits: a deliberate MP plan from years ago. Travel, acommodation, entertainment, power (Note that power and phone is on top of Bill’s $1,000 pw. Therefore Bill probably gets $1,000 + 150? pw)
Bill is astute enough to weather this but will Public Opinion?
Spam: “receives”
How about:
Who said that? Any guesses?
burt? mike?
Am surprised that its English that’s been caught in this way as he seems to be far more intelligent than a lot of the Nat caucus.
I guess its part of the Nat / ACT double standard arrogance on display recently – c’mon kiwis tighten your belts so that your lords and masters can live on the hogs back.
Was this identified as ‘Low quality spending’ as Bill would put it? I’d put it in the ‘Low hanging fruit’ category
Maybe he’ll claim it’s economic stimulus.
Like Hobbs and Bunkle, English has got to resign over this one.
But, let’s remember that the issue is not about English owning a property in Wellington. I’ll bet other MPs do too. We know that John Key does, but the coverage that place got a few years ago described it as an apartment, not the family home. We don’t really want our PM entertaining foreign leaders in a little apartment. Do we?
English is different, because unlike Key, he is a Wellington based MP. He represents a Southland electorate, but he and his family are established in and are living in Wellington full time. He doesn’t have to travel back and forth to see them. So, he should get no more of an allowance than Peter Dunne or Heather Roy.
exactly. If it was genuinely renting for a house they wouldn’t otherwise have, eyebrows might still be raised at the amount of money but the real issue here is that this is the family home and he’s claiming an out of town allowance for it.
Which was exactly what many of the UK ministers all did. Of course they did it on a much more spectacular scale, though this does not improve the level of ethiicality of the act.
Farrar has previously used the attack lines that Goff doesnt live in his Roskill electorate, ( but in Auckland) how unethical ‘that’ was.
When reminded that English didnt even live in the South Island, all he could respond was that , ‘they had holidays in Dipton’
Sounds like English billed the taxpayers for the flights ( his family has 6 kids) to his ‘holiday home’.
Translation: “Mary and I can scam $1000 of taxpayers money a week if the title is in her name alone. We couldn’t if we were jointly on the title. So, in March we changed it so my name was no longer on the title.”
Hey, I just had another look at the allowances and it is interesting that even if you buy English’s line that he can take this money from taxpayers because the rules say he can, which I don’t buy, of course, he still has a problem.
Look at Sharples and Williamson. They are both ministers. They say that they are out of Wellington MPs and they collected nothing for Wellington accommodation as a minister, but they did claim Wellington accommodation from Parliamentary Service.
Now, I don’t know if they own Wellington properties, but it suggests that if you are an out of Wellington MP and you are a Minister not taking a minister’s house, you should claim your allowance through Parliamentary Service as a regular MP.
English got his allowance from DIA. What’s with that?
Releasing the private details of someone deriving their income from the taxpayer in order to silence him? How shameful.
this information is public. The wellington accommodation expense information was released by Parliamentary Service on Thursday. The ownership of property is a matter of public record – LINZ.
Also, are you now conceding that Paula Bennett was in the wrong?
And, furthermore, don’t you think that our elected officials should be held to higher standards by the public than private citizens?
thanx to the Greens for starting the process of disclosure
having said that time for a rave
Fuck I work my nuts off for about half of what he is scamming for his house
Its fucking disgraceful. The cunt should go
Yeah pull it in a bit mate.
Exactly. For someone who is already on the taxpayer’s tit for the tune of $5,500 pw, its contemptible, regardless of whether it is ‘legal’ or not. As someone else hinted at before, the most revealing aspect is that English is not a stupid person, he only had to look at what was happening in Britain to see it coming, so why the hell compromise his entire political career for a $1000pw?
Only two possible explanations; either he truly believes that like all ‘born to rule Tories’ he is above the same moral rules that apply to the rest of us, or he’s taking the piss … knowing that John Key is in no position to do anything about it.
Whichever way it’s cut up though, his moral authority is scragged. Every public servant who is asked to ‘save money’ can now laugh in their manager’s face and ask if they can ‘save as much as the Minister of Finance, and where do I get the application forms please?’
From the Dom:
Ho ho.
I think you’ll find that the cheapest option, Mr Bill, is to NOT GET PAID TO LIVE IN YOUR OWN FUCKING HOUSE!!
Sorry for the caps, and the cussing. But jeez, $1000 a week to live in your own house? Come on!
Ms Audrey Young made that point in the herald… cheapest option would be claiming nothing.
the rules are written by all mps.dont try and tell me the greens are saints either as the collective own the property they rent out to them selfs so all green mps as guilty as bill english.I think alot of the allowances should be changed especialy the ex mps travel.again i point out all green mps are as guilty as bill so keep up the campain we can aford to lose him can you guys destroy your own party
Care to arrange those words into sentences so I can dismiss them as wrong instead of just stupid?
by the way its not 1000 a week it will 920 a week or 48k a year
Really, is that all?
In that case it’s a bargain for having someone live in a house that they own.
It’s a thousand a week. Because perception is all, details are nothing. National taught us that last year.
“Explaining is losing” – John Key.
A thousand a week. A nice, round, disgusting grand.
Could be more. Seems there might be $150 a week in power and phone costs too.
For his own home, remember.
Then there’s the free internet, newspaper subscriptions, taxis to and from the Beehive, and subsidised kai at Bellamy’s (or whatever they call it now), I don’t begrudge them their perks but this legal manoevering to rort the public purse really is disgraceful. I wonder how many TIA’s English’s rent-scam would provide.
Burp – Pike ?
Oh! Well! that makes it OK then.
It was only the extra $80 a week I thought he was rorting that was pissing me off!
$920 is $200 a week more than that woman on the DPB has to raise her three daughters, two of whom are sick. And this is just his rort to add to his $270K salary
In all likelihood Key will not sack English over this because it would be too destabilising. On the other hand it will damage him, English and the Speaker (who has apparently been responsible for approving this rort), leaving them all exposed to attack.
I can just see Labour running a 2011 election ad featuring the “Claim Master General”.
If nothing else we can always torment the dittoheads about the moral relativity involved in signing a painting to raise funds for a charity auction, versus claiming $50,00pa for living in your own home…. for the next decade or so.
Just wondering, is the owner of the house charging Bill $1000 a week to live with her? Thus he can claim it as an expense …
A fucking grand .. I can’t believe it
Sp presumably if he didn’t get a grand a week his family would split up ?
They wouldn’t just carry on loving in the house they already FUCKING own?
This is just taking the piss
Hey, I’ve just been doing a bit of digging, and it is even more corrupt than I thought.
The property in Karori, which was reportedly transferred to Mary English’s name in March (so was in Bill’s name as well as hers from 2003 until then) does not even appear in the MP’s Register of Pecuniary Interests published in January of this year.
Do I see a Ministerial resignation coming on?
It might pay Toad to clarify the situation with the Greens who as I understand it own their properties as part of a super plan?
Again, I’m not defending English who if nothing else will be branded a hypocrite.
But noted on TV3 not one opposition politician having a dig at English.
TV3′s Scott Campbell is auditioning for a Beehive job, like his predecessor Stephen Parker. He pretty much runs the Nats defence lines these days.
Still, English gets the lead story on both bulletins – not quite what Key had in mind for the triumphant conference coverage.
That one’s already been the subject of much scrutiny Daveski – in particular by Farrar.
The only advantantage to the GreenFutures Superannuation Scheme (that owns the properties) in renting its properties to MPs provides security of tenancy – i.e. that unless an MP resigns the Super scheme will have a secure tenancy for 3 years, whereas, property owned by the Greens Super scheme that is rented to non-MPs may occasionally have unanticipated short periods that it is not tenanted.
Technical, and trivial – not like the scam English is apparently perpetrating (and Phillida Bunkle did years ago, I seem to recall).
I’m confused. The Nats are saying it’s owned by a trust… but the ownership was transferred from Bill to Mary? So it’s not owned a by trust?
If it is in a trust, that explains why it’s not in the register of interests… but wait… there’s no mention of a trust in the register and if there is one that owns the house he lives in then he clearly has a pecuniary interest in it.
Not adding up.
Trusts never appear on certificates of title, only the trustees do. So if the Bill get rich English trust appointed his wife as the trustee only her name would appear on the title. It can get even more complicated than this but that is the general rule.
It seems really sloppy. Bill could have appointed a couple of lawyers as trustees and their names would have appeared on the title and no one would have been the wiser.
I thought i saw i ministerial resignation with Bennett
no chance with this lot of “born to rule hypercritical bastards”
We may still do. If the Privacy Commissioner rules she has broken the law, then it will be difficult for her to stay.
English is the MP for Clutha Southland. As the Register of Pecuniary Interests reveals, he owns property there, but I understand it is or was either leased or rented out. So where does he stay when he is in his electorate overnight on constituency matters. In a motel or hotel perhaps, with the costs of that being charged back too.
Good point Toad
And if he is renting out that home, no doubt he’s been claiming expenses and deductions on that too.
So can we look forward to a full release of English’s IRD returns for the last decade in order to clarify what has been going on? After all it is ‘relevant’ information.
Redlogix. There will have to be an accounting from him.
Toad. any source on what you say about the dipton house being rented out? Because if he’s claiming accommodation expenses for being in Dipton and accommodation expenses for being in Wellington that’s game set and match.
Unfortunately, we can’t OIA his expenses, and I don’t know if it can be asked under the written or oral question process. That only leaves the media to get the answers…. that’ll be a big ask.
captcha: potentially