web analytics
The Standard

Which one’s true, Bill?

Written By: - Date published: 2:32 pm, August 6th, 2009 - 13 comments
Categories: national - Tags:

English looking resigned ecuAccording to the Speaker, Bill English MP’s “primary place of residence” is in Dipton because Bill has told him it is. But according to the Registrar of companies, Bill the shareholder of Resolution Farms‘ “full residential address” is in Wellington because Bill has told them it is.

The Companies Act requires shareholders to provide a full residential address. Section 377 of the Act states that it is an offence under the Act to make a false statement in relation to any of the requirements of the Act, including giving the correct address.

And John Key says Bill has broken no rules? He can’t have it both ways.

Everybody knows Bill has lived in Wellington for years. I still think he should tell the truth to the Speaker, pay it all back and claim the out-of-town allowance whenever he visits Dipton, which from all accounts isn’t that often.

I suppose it may also become an issue of parliamentary “privilege”.

13 comments on “Which one’s true, Bill?”

  1. r0b 1

    Curiouser and curiouser!

    And I’ve lost track in the avalanche, but what has happened with the apparently incomplete register of pecuniary interests again?

  2. cocamc 2

    The companies act states A reference in this Act to an address means,—
    (a) In relation to an individual, the full address of the place
    where that person usually lives

    Lots of people have lots of residences. Bill English wouldn’t be the first.

    • Tigger 2.1

      ‘the place where that person usually lives’ = one address, not ‘lots of residences’.

      • cocamc 2.1.1

        Tigger I know that. John is trying to link the address Bill used to a breach of the Companies Act and it doesn’t read that way.

  3. ben 3

    John, you forgot to mention Bill’s Wellington address in your post. Without that full context nothing else makes sense.

    • vidiot 3.1

      Which one ? The Companies office URL in the post shows 2 different Wellington addresses for service.

  4. I wonder if English paid the gift duty tax, for transfering ownership of his Wellington residence to the trust controlled by his wife. Any transfers exceeding $27,000 in a single financial year attracts gift duty.

    Only charitable trusts registered with the Charities Commission are exempt from this type of treatment.

  5. sausage fingers 5

    PP, no need for the “gotcha” tone. He seems pretty well advised. I think you’ll find he did what everyone else does in this situation and transfers it and takes a debt back for the purchase price forgiving $27k each year until the debt is forgiven. It’s pretty standard stuff.

  6. Ron 6

    “Pretty well advised”??! hahahahahahahahahaha
    Let’s see….is this how the advice went…..?
    “Ok, Bill, just tell them you’re entitled” “Oh, tell them you’re entitled because you want to keep your family together” “Oh, tell them it’s a tough job being a Minister and……………. you’re entitled”
    “Hong on…no, no….tell them you can see how it looks so you’ll a little bit back”
    “Try to spot one point so you don’t get dizzy spinning around”

  7. Rich 7

    One may have several houses, but one can only “usually live” in one of them.

    The choice of which might be a matter of appreciation, but one is obliged to provide an honest answer, and not reference your grannies house in Hamilton if you only stay there at Christmas. Equally, an MP is expected to give Parliamentary Services an honest answer for his main residence, and it’s hard to see how these could differ from the answer for other purposes.

  8. sukie damson 8

    so let me get this striaght,

    Bill English + Financial minutae x honesty = fraud. Authorised by John Key. QED.

  9. RedLogix 9

    Now almost buried under all of the spin and misdirection from Key and English is one plain fact.

    The taxpayer was funding Mr English’s mortgage on a private home whose real ownership he tried to hide in his wife’s trust.

    There can be no objection to public funds being used to properly and decently house MP’s and Ministers while they reside in Wellington. The ideal solution (and one that USED to be the case for decades) would be for Parliamententary Services to own a number of appropriate homes and appartments in the city. Yes it would cost public money to purchase and maintain the homes, but they would remain public assets. Over time the actual cash flow would reduce to maintenance, insurance and rates… a sum far less than the many thousands per week being shelled out at present.

    I can understand why we pay Minister’s well, I can understand that we reimburse them for expenses incurred in the course of their work, I can accept the allowances for travel and so on, but ask yourself… how many employers also buy their employees a house and let them keep it as well?

    There is no question that someone has cooked the rules to allow Mr English to get away with this rort. Yes he ‘broke no rules’, that’s only because someone re-wrote them for him. Potentially if this scam had not been uncovered, if say he had remained Minister of Finance for two term’s he would have received almost $300, 000 from the taxpayer towards paying off a house. At the end of his political career he gets to determine whether he keeps, sells or rents that property, entirely for his own family trust’s benefit.

    This wasn’t a small beer scam.

  10. outofbed 10

    Red you have hit the nail on the head
    We pay, he gets to keep the property, the capital gains everything
    it is a F%$!g disgrace
    Its also the arrogance about it that gets my goat
    He doesn’t think it is wrong
    I can imagine the thinking ” I work hard pay lots of taxes I am going to get some of it back”
    Put the house in the wife’s name
    and with tax cuts for the rich ,that should recoup $1500 per week

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Public service advertisements by The Standard

Current CO2 level in the atmosphere