Sloppy but nothing more

152 comments on “Sloppy but nothing more ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Daveo 1

   16 December 2010 at 9:18 pm

   Goff’s too much of a dullard to warrant a real scandal. Funny thing is Key was handing out bottles of his PM wine to the gallery journos last night. The stuff from the vineyard he “didn’t know” he owned when he cut winemakers a legal break.

   The gallery was loving it too. What a pack of fucking tossers.
   • Eddie 1.1

     16 December 2010 at 10:18 pm

     you’ve got to admire the balls – giving them wine from the same winery this year. But he knows they’ll just take it without question and a smile.
     • Jim Nald 1.1.1

       16 December 2010 at 11:39 pm

       The gallery journos should keep their integrity in truly being the Fourth Estate.
       For bottles of wine, they must not lost themselves to the swine’s estate.
2. just saying 2

   16 December 2010 at 9:18 pm

   I’m being optimistic about this. Labour has successfully played the long game here and created a means of getting rid of Goff and being able to take the moral high ground about it (we in Labour will no longer tolerate etc….)
   The speech today was actually his valedictory speech.
   Thumbs up
3. higherstandard 3

   16 December 2010 at 9:41 pm

   Who the fuck cares we all know that they’re all a pack of dullards, rorters and poppinjays
4. mickysavage 4

   16 December 2010 at 9:45 pm

   Sorry I am really struggling with this. So Phil has a flat that he rents out. And??

   Does he receive $1k a week while still living in it and also have a cleaner? If not I think we should move on to more important issues like the state of the country’s finances.
   • Eddie 4.1

     16 December 2010 at 9:59 pm

     yep, there’s no scandal. This post is just about making that clear.
     • Mickysavage 4.1.1

       16 December 2010 at 10:29 pm

       Cheers Eddie
       • OleOlebiscuitBarrell 4.1.1.1

         17 December 2010 at 8:07 am

         The problem is that, in an effort to appear holier than holy, he promised to sell it. Then didn’t because he thought no-one would notice.
         • Gosman 4.1.1.1.1

           17 December 2010 at 11:48 am

           Also he got one of his staff to help him lease it by showing prospective tennants around, (a couple of times during working hours).
           • Roger 4.1.1.1.1.1

             17 December 2010 at 12:37 pm

             Can you provide a link to prove this? The only information I could find was that the office staff helped but did not say with was while being paid or on work time.
             • Gosman …

               17 December 2010 at 2:46 pm

               So are you stating that if there was evidence that one of the staffers was doing this for him during working hours it would be an issue then?
               • Roger …

                 17 December 2010 at 3:07 pm

                 If they were paid wages by parliamentary services while attending to personal affairs, it is an issue unless it is a part of an electorate office staff member’s job description that would apply to the role generally (regardless of which electorate office). I was also asking a question: Do you have proof of wrongdoing or are you making it up?
                 • lprent …

                   17 December 2010 at 3:19 pm

                   Phil Goff’s electorate office is in Auckland, so the question doesn’t really arise.

                   You’ll probably find that his staff in Wellington (which from memory are employed by something other than Parliamentary services) do have responsibilities to gofer him
                   • Roger …

                     17 December 2010 at 3:26 pm

                     Of course, I should know that. The Stuff article said “Labour Leaders Office”. It was also clear that the assistance was provided in a personal capacity. Either way, Gosman’s line of enquiry appears to be dead.
                   • Gosman …

                     18 December 2010 at 9:50 am

                     So do you think it is okay if someone uses their publicly funded staff to benefit themselves financially?

                     How is this any different from taking advantage of publically funded travel to perform personal business on the side?
                   • Roger …

                     18 December 2010 at 1:53 pm

                     Gosman, your questions are irrelevant

                     Reason 1: You have no evidence that publicly funded staff were used to benefit Phil Goff financially. The staff member helped in a personal capacity.

                     Reason 2: The primary reason for selling the property was that he was pressured politically to do so, not for financial reasons.

                     Reason 3: The fact that question 1 has not been proven to be at all pertinent makes question 2 irrelevant.
   • mark m 4.2

     16 December 2010 at 10:53 pm

     you struggle with most things involving ethics if it involves someone from the minority side of politics
     Goff is no diiferent than any other politician , other than polling in the margin of error .
     He has been caught with his pants down and deserves what is coming his way.
     Great way to take the heat off the Nats over stalled economy and Pansy Wong
5. Pascal's bookie 5

   16 December 2010 at 9:49 pm

   He’s got a thing about other peoples houses though eh, that ede fellah.

   http://thestandard.org.nz/too-far/
   • mickysavage 5.1

     16 December 2010 at 10:11 pm

     PB

     I like to think that the left has an ethical intolerance to rorting and the right do not care about the ethics, they just want to attack and shout and complain in the hope that they will win and the left will lose. This issue is a good example of this.

     So Goff has a flat that he rents out and he then rented another flat. This would probably mean in financial terms that if he does not have a mortgage he breaks even.

     Blinglish owns a property that he then transfers to a family trust and then maximises the amount of money he receives from the state. If he did not transfer the house to a trust he would have received a lot less.

     The cruncher for me is that Goff is asking, demanding, advocating and insisting that the tax rate for the wealthy goes up. This includes him. Blinglish is doing his best to minimise the amount of tax that the wealthy pay. This will make him wealthier.

     So the right throw a lot of mud at it but the big picture is clear. If Goff had his way the rich would pay more. If Blinglish had his way the rich would pay less.

     And so we get into this charade where strange individuals jump up and down and raise discrete small facts as conclusive proof that Labour polies support the wealthy and Tory pollies support the poor.

     We seem to be losing sight of the big picture. Perhaps this is what is intended.
     • mark m 5.1.1

       16 December 2010 at 10:54 pm

       The left has an ethical intolerance to rorting?
       Good god man what planet do you live on
     • gingercrush 5.1.2

       16 December 2010 at 11:12 pm

       And if Phil Goff wanted to bomb the whole South Island. mickeysavage would find that admirable as well.

       Jesus you talk some real crap.
       • felix 5.1.2.1

         16 December 2010 at 11:40 pm

         That could actually be the policy to win my vote…
         • Nick C 5.1.2.1.1

           17 December 2010 at 10:40 am

           “I like to think that the left has an ethical intolerance to rorting and the right do not care about the ethics”

           You lost me at “I like to think”. Because you dont really like to think, do you Micky? All that goes through your head is “Red team good, Blue team Baaaaaaaaaaaaad”.
           • The Baron 5.1.2.1.1.1

             17 December 2010 at 12:24 pm

             … the right do not care about the ethics” is a late entry into the most hyperbolic fanboy comment of the year. What does it even mean? What evidence does he have to back this up? I know you’re in love with your favourite colour, but this is taking it all a bit far.

             Or is it just more vacuous nonsense from a life-long labour voter, and failed aspirant candidate?

             Well done Mickey, left it to the last minute but you may take the pennant after all.
           • felix 5.1.2.1.1.2

             18 December 2010 at 12:38 am

             Nick C dearest,

             If you’re going to make a habit of accusing others of tribal partisanship you should probably get rid of that stupid fucking avatar first.

             Love, felix
         • higherstandard 5.1.2.1.2

           17 December 2010 at 10:55 am

           Now if only they could progress their ginga removal programme, they’d be back in 2001 in a land slide.
     • Swampy 5.1.3

       18 December 2010 at 7:19 pm

       Actually the Greens got nailed for the same thing
       And it”s pretty simple actually

       If My Goff has paid the mortage on that property he owns then he could not get accomm allowence
       Rent it out then get the taxpayer to pay the accom on another flat he rents makes him get more money. Even if he has got a morgage on it then he could still be getting more money from renting it plus getting the other house basicaly free of charge

       See one thing Goff said doesn’t stack up. he said he couldnt get the tenannts out of the house when he left Cabinet. but He actually could have terminanted the tenancy and taken the house fo himself.

       The greens tried out having their super fund owning the house then renting them to green Mps the problem was the Parliaentery services didn’t know the house was actually owned by the Greens party.
6. Anne 6

   16 December 2010 at 10:00 pm

   Hang on a minute. I look after a rented apartment for relatives who lives in Aussie. They want to sell it but they’re doing the decent thing and waiting until the tenants are ready to leave. Has it occurred to anyone that Phil Goff was doing the same thing? His tenant left 3 weeks ago and he plans to try and sell the property once the repair work is complete.

   What the hell is supposed to be wrong with that? There is no comparison with Bill English. English set out to rort the system. Goff has done nothing of the kind.
   • Gosman 6.1

     17 December 2010 at 11:50 am

     So is it acceptable to use tax payer funded staff to help him lease it out again during working hours?
     • Jum 6.1.1

       17 December 2010 at 12:58 pm

       Gosman, I’ll bet he didn’t have 46 pr people holding a mirror up for JKeyll so JKeyll could practice his ‘nice’ smile and wave, you fkg plonker.

       Please excuse my bad language.

       Considering JKeyll now owns the press, probably 146 by now NAct pr people (all paid for by the taxpayer) dotted around parliament disguised as press advisers, apolitical policy analysts, fake office pot ‘plants’, New Zealanders who don’t do their politics 101 on the dangers of ignoring history and the exploits of the smiling assassin who attacked the NZ$ will be doomed to lose their very souls to this JKeyll and Hide who has no loyalty to anything but his bank balance and the power of the office of Prime Minister in furthering his and his backers’ control over Kiwis and our assets.

       He has tarnished the office of Prime Minister. Vote of No Confidence in this government.
   • the pink postman 6.2

     17 December 2010 at 12:46 pm

     Of course not Annie,However the Nats Dirty Tricks Brigade (Textor/Crosby) is on constant watch to slure the political Left/
     Over they years they have been very successful by destroying the careers of innocent Lefties.Its scary so we need to be vigilant at all times.
   • mark m 6.3

     17 December 2010 at 6:11 pm

     18 montsS Anne not 3 weeks .
     Goff said he would sell it 18 months ago , but hes continued to rort and double dip until hes been caught.
     Whats worse is he is using public servants paid by the taxpayer for his own private business interests .

     Parallels here with Phillip Feild.

     Goff should be done for fraud as well , mind you having the Loony left led by a non entity is good for the country as it puts back the election of the haters and wreckers at least another term
     • Anne 6.3.1

       17 December 2010 at 8:58 pm

       Go get your brain disentangled Mark M. It’s in dire need of it!

       The tenant left three weeks ago. Now go back and read my comment 16 December at 10:00pm – just three comments above yours. Then scroll down to Irascible 17 December 8:10pm and read it. You might have to read it several times, but do try hard to understand it.
       • mark m 6.3.1.1

         17 December 2010 at 9:49 pm

         gee you dont get it do you Anne , the tenant leaving three weeks ago is irrelevant, Goff promised to sell it 18 months ago.
         Go back to Red Alert where you can exist among the head in the sand brigade.
         Goff is taking Labour to a resounding defeat next yearThe public didnt make a mistake last election.
         Get used to it Anne
   • Swampy 6.4

     18 December 2010 at 7:25 pm

     Because he can have sold the house at any time from when he said he was selling it –

     Think about the monetary gain possible then think about whether you still believe Goffs not set out to maximise financial gain of himself

     Lets say Philly owns a house. It might have a morgage on it or maybe it has none. Parl Servs will pay the costs weekly of his morgtage only so that might not be as much as it can be rented for.

     But letssuppose Philly rents out the house and he;s getting more money than the costs of mortgage. Then he says to PS “I’m renting another house and can you pay all the rent with that”.

     And the result was Phill can have more money in his pocket than when he was living in his own place.

     This is roughly what the Greens did, their super scheme owned the house, the house was then retnted to the Greens MPs as tenants, all paid by Parl Servs when the house should have been let rent free as they already owned it – except they would have got no money from it.
7. Deadly_NZ 7

   16 December 2010 at 10:16 pm

   From what I read Phils house had tenants it’s now empty BUT until a bathroom has been repaired it cannot be sold

   short and consise no problem UNLIKE BLINGLISH who did lie
8. SPC 8

   16 December 2010 at 10:31 pm

   If he is looking for new tenants – he needs to make it clear that they are on a short lease while the flat goes onto the market for sale. What value is his credibility otherwise?

   That sorted he can then refer to housing allowances of Ministers and mention support for both pay, super review and allowances coming under the same independent regime.
   • SPC 8.1

     16 December 2010 at 10:53 pm

     Basically he needs to go onto the offensive – a nice sting in the tail would be to call for the salary of MP’s to be fixed at 3 * the average wage ($50,000) – so any future increase ($145,000) could be only $5,000. And say that MP’s should not be getting larger wage increases than the average wage earner.
     • burt 8.1.1

       17 December 2010 at 4:18 pm

       I think it would be better for NZ to peg the average wage to the MPs wage increases rather than the other way around. I’m sure many many workers would have loved the circa 9% rises the MPs got year on year between 1999-2008. The PMs salary basically doubled over that time – how many workers can say that?
       • SPC 8.1.1.1

         17 December 2010 at 9:35 pm

         You know that government should not set the private sector wage rates – excepting the minimum wage and that the 1999-2008 government did not set MP’s pay (and the system to do this was agrred by National etc).

         The housing allowance rule should be that all MP’s, but those representing Wellington electorates, get it – regardless of their primary residence location – as they need two residences to do their job.

         And the same allowance – whether for MP’s or Ministers (excepting those given Ministerial housing get no housing allowance).

         As for list MP’s – there is no need to have two residences to do the job. However there is a need for a travel and accomodation allowance system that caters to their particular needs.
         • burt 8.1.1.1.1

           21 December 2010 at 12:40 am

           SPC

           Is your memory that short? Throughout the surplus bonanza years of the Labour-led govt we had Cullen portrayed as the Grinch. Constantly calling for restraint in wage increases because of inflation fears.

           The bottom line SPC is that if Cullen miserly and stupid ideology of using fiscal drag to create surpluses occurred at the same time as reasonable wage inflation to lift us away from being a low wage economy the surpluses would have been completely embarrassing. Govt spending while people struggle against static tax thresholds is never a good look so easier to pillage and pay off debt so they don’t notice they are being fleeced. Kind of like plucking the Goose with the least amount of hissing.

           The ultimate laugh in all of that though is watching the partisan Labour apologists who cheered paying off debt rather than investment in long term infrastructure now bagging the Nat’s for borrowing to build the power stations, roads, fiber networks and buy new sparkly stuff for Cullen’s final scorched earth spend.
9. Interesting 9

   17 December 2010 at 12:36 am

   This post smacks of hypocrisy and double standards.

   Bill English was getting $28K for claiming he lived in Dipton and claiming a living allowance for wellington, which was within the rules (what a wanker).

   Phil Goff is getting $28k for renting out a house will living in another one, which is within the rules (he too is a wanker).

   BOTH were/are within the rules. However, in my opinion BOTH should NOT be claiming it. They both earn enough not to.

   Phil Goff said that Bill should lead by example and not take it, now Phil needs to follow his own advice.

   In this one story, Phil has undermined the work of his colleges for bring to light those who are rorting the system (or using it to their advantage “within the Rules”).

   Perception is what matters, and now Phil has the perception of being no better than Bill.
   I am disappointed at the double standards being show here. I know that the circumstances for both cases are different, but both were/are within the rules.

   Therefore, the same standard that you applied to blingish should be applied to Goff.
   • Dilbert 9.1

     17 December 2010 at 8:27 am

     I agree 100% Interesting. I don’t believe Goff has rortted the system any more or less than English did but he has damaged the Labour/Goff brand.

     How can Joe average voter trust them when they don’t act with integrity and carry through with the things they have promised to do?
     • Interesting 9.1.1

       17 December 2010 at 9:07 am

       I agree Dilbert about the trust thing.

       It is a real shame because Labour were doing a good job exposing rorters or perceived rorters.

       What people need to understand is that it is the perception that matters to the public. Whether it is a rort or not, the perception is that it is not right.

       It surprises me that when Labour attacked blinglish and blinglish said it was within the rules they still crucified him. Yet when Phil does it and uses the SAME excuse it is OK.

       I know that the circumstances in each case are a little different. But like i say PERCEPTION is everything. It has made Labour, especially Phil, look like a total hypocrite (especially after on the last day of parliament Trevor Mallard had a dig at blinglish about his housing arrangements)
     • daveg 9.1.2

       17 December 2010 at 11:30 am

       “Labour/Goff brand” What ? If there was a brand he would be at least above the margin of error. As far as his rabid attacks on National MP’s go, well “people in glass houses” and such. I can’t believe people are making excuses for him. If Labour are even the remotest of chances to win the next election (clearly they aren’t) , he has to be dumped – yesterday. Replace him with Mallard, such an unlikeable unpleasant nonce, but at least it’ll be entertaining before he loses.
     • Cadwallader 9.1.3

       17 December 2010 at 3:11 pm

       Agree. The Goof has gaffed Guv!
   • The Baron 9.2

     17 December 2010 at 12:27 pm

     Yeah, this is the tragedy of it all really – and shows just how much of a novice Goff is at all this.

     Fair cop indeed Eddie. It isn’t the same degree of scandal, but does risk showing Goff up as an incompetent hypocrite. That may not be fair or reasonable, but it is the way it will be spun.

     Goff seems to be heading to a personal defeat of the magnitude of English in 2002. How badly he drags his party down with him is yet to be seen. If I was labour, I would be looking to an early change in 2011 to give a fighting chance without this own-goal loving moron.
10. Irascible 10

    17 December 2010 at 1:50 am

    This story is a beat up at the beginning of the silly season on NZ newspapers. Goff was not rorting the system. Double Dipton English was. The beat up is a lot of noise from a party whose cabinet is riddled with the behaviour that tumbled the Wongs and are now casting around for pebbles to distract from their ever vanishing leader who is happier in Hawaii than in NZ.
    • Swampy 10.1

      18 December 2010 at 7:32 pm

      You are talking nonsese, suggest you educate yourself
      The Greens party did the same number. They bought a house and put it into their super scheme. The super trust then rented the house to the GreeN MPs and has PS pick up the tab.

      If the house was owned by the Greens Party they could not rent it to themselves and get that paid for but they put into their trust and had that rent it to them thus the super sheme got an income they were morally not entitled to but all “Within the rules”

      Phil Goffs super scheme buys the house rents it out then Phil needs somewhere to live so he could go live in his house. Then he would only get the mortgage cost paid.

      Or he can get more money by renting the house out, paying the mortgage and creaming the difference and telling PS he needs them to pay the rent on another house that he is living in.

      If you look at the history of these allowances it is very plain that history is of politicians finding ways to cream the maximum amount “wihin the rules” always regardeless of morality. Philida Bunkle another Green got nailed back in the 90s when she was doing muht the same, renting out her house in Wellington and getting money to pay for another hourse and she got dumped from the Cabinet.
11. pollywog 11

    17 December 2010 at 6:08 am

    Jerry the Hut’s heart just wasn’t in it when he was delivering the punchline though eh…kinda going through the motions playing tit for tat scandal brokering after Hodgson pwned Pansy

    still, Goff shoulda sold up and bought an investment property outside Welli instead, as it does point to his character as being less than upstanding, so does this…

    the cruncher for me is that Goff is asking, demanding, advocating and insisting that the tax rate for the wealthy goes up. This includes him.

    …cos if he was really commited to showing some love and solidarity for the common man he would have donated his taxcut to charity.

    I mean let’s face it, he’s as much of a self serving ‘rich prick’ as any careerist politician milking the taxpayer cow for all its worth. Way more like one of them than one of us

    I wonder if he knows the moral highground is greater then the height of the soapbox from which to preach hypocrisy to the great unwashed from ?

    remember ‘axe the tax’…how about just cutting the bullshit ?
    • Swampy 11.1

      18 December 2010 at 7:33 pm

      Is tje Labour party a charity?
12. g_man 12

    17 December 2010 at 7:12 am

    Phil Goff said he would sell his Wellington apartment 18 months ago.

    He hasn’t. He still owns this apartment, rents it out, and claims up to $28,000 a year from us, the taxpayers.

    But that’s okay, because he is trying to sell it to get rid of any bad perceptions.

    Except according to 3 News, Goff’s pimp Paul Grant is currently offering a six-month lease on the aprtment.

    Hmmm.

    I guess none of this matters though, because it’s all within the rules. It’s perfectly legal for him to own an apartment and have a rental income, then claim $28,000 a year from the taxpayer for accommodation.

    How do you spell “double standards” again?
    • ghostwhowalksnz 12.1

      17 December 2010 at 7:56 am

      If he worked for Key , would you be worried about it – of course not.
    • Eddie 12.2

      17 December 2010 at 8:00 am

      three cabinet ministers are in the same position as Goff. They live out of Wellington and claim the out of town allowance for their accommodation in the capital while also owning investment properties that happen to be in Wellington.

      Double Dipton’s family home is in Wellington – has been since he went to university. The last time he lived in his electorate was for six months before the 1990 election. Yet he claimed that his home in Wellington was not his home, Dipton was, and put his home into a trust that then rented it to ministerial services for his family to live in.

      See the difference? One’s a rort. One’s not.
      • mickysavage 12.2.1

        17 December 2010 at 8:11 am

        Good concise response Eddie. I wish that the MSM and Goff himself were able to express it as clearly.

        Now watch as the RWNJs completely ignore the fundamental point that Goff lives outside of Wellington and is entitled to an accommodation allowance.
        • just saying 12.2.1.1

          17 December 2010 at 9:09 am

          You make a good point MS, I wish I’d had a chance to read it before I wrote (below).

          That Blinglish actually lives in Wellington, while Goff lives in both Auckland and Wellington, does make the blinglish rort substantially worse than the Goff rort. Because you do incur extra expenses running two households.

          However, if you own a home in Wellington, rent isn’t of necessity one of them.
        • Armchair Critic 12.2.1.2

          17 December 2010 at 10:47 am

          It’s one of those threads where almost everyone is right.
          This isn’t a rort. The entitlement to have accomodation paid for is fair and reasonable for Goff.
          I assume it is the same for Heatley, Mapp and Collins. On the assumption Heatley et al are entitled to their accomodation funding, then not implicating them was the correct thing for Goff to do.
          Sloppy? It’s worse than that. Goff has fucked up. He said he would do something and hasn’t done it. Maybe there is a perfectly good reason for doing so (the tenant just left?), but he needed to come out thundering “I said I would sell it and I will. Now the tenant has left I will have the property on the market as soon as possible. Within the week if I can.”
          This mealy-mouthed crap about “the shower needs fixing before I can do anything” and “it’s my investment for my retirement” is not befitting for a leader of a Labour party anywhere in the world.
          On the subject of “it’s my investment for my retirement” – I have nothing against politicians having investment properties. What I’ve been pondering is how far they have to be from Wellington to not cause the kerfuffle that Goff’s apartment has caused. If the property was in Auckland I’m sure there would be no fuss. Wairarapa or Levin. Still no fuss? Upper Hutt? Lower Hutt? Where’s the line?
          Advice to Phil. Sell the place quick smart. Invest it in property way away from Wellington, or in something else completely, like companies that take pride in their treatment of their employees, clean energy technology, something that will win you good PR. C’mon, you have an election to win, and you will only get one shot.
      • Interesting 12.2.2

        17 December 2010 at 9:18 am

        Eddie

        what you fail to see is that it is all about perception. To the public it looks like Goff is a rorter.

        Because Labour have been attaking rorters all year (even though some of them have been “within the rules” like Goffs “arrangement” is) it looks like they are a bunch of hypocrites.

        Labour has worked hard to bring out rorters or perceived rorters. Now with this one story they have lost the moral high ground. Why? because the PERCEPTION is that Phil is a rorter Now everytime Labour try an attack rorters this will be thrown in their face.

        The other problem is that OVER a year ago Phil said he would sell it. It seems a little convenient that it has “just come up for rent” now that the story broke. I don’t doubt that this is true (that it has just come up for rent) but it is the perception of it all that makes this a juciy story for MSM.

        Consistancy on how this site treats issues important for its integrity.
      • Anne 12.2.3

        17 December 2010 at 9:33 am

        Eddie said;
        “three cabinet ministers are in the same position as Goff. They live out of Wellington and claim the out of town allowance for their accommodation in the capital while also owning investment properties that happen to be in Wellington.”

        Has Phil Goff named them? Because that’s the obvious thing to do. I bet he didn’t.

        I expect it is petty, vindictive payback for Pansy Wong. Pettiness and malice is in their DNA and alwasy has been. Witness the Standard’s own RWNJs. Happy to name them but you all know who they are 😉
        • Carol 12.2.3.1

          17 December 2010 at 9:36 am

          http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4468042/Goff-accuses-Nats-of-sting-over-apartment

          Cabinet ministers Phil Heatley, Wayne Mapp and Judith Collins also had apartments in Wellington which they rented out.
          • Anne 12.2.3.1.1

            17 December 2010 at 10:06 am

            Thanks for that Carol, but it doesn’t look like Goff himself named them.

            I’m a Goff supporter, but he does need to think more quickly on his feet. He should have been on the attack immediately with something like: “I’m looking forward to your beat-ups on Phil Heatley, Wayne Mapp and Judith Collins boys. Make it the headlines too. If it’s good enough for me its good enough for them”
      • mark m 12.2.4

        17 December 2010 at 6:59 pm

        Eddie the difference is in your mind.
        Both were legal.
        One stopped taking money and paid some back ,the other makes excuses while using public servants to do his private business , kinda like Phillip Feild dont you think.
        Oh sorry Eddie you cant see that
      • Swampy 12.2.5

        18 December 2010 at 7:37 pm

        No difference including the 3 cabinet ministers They all say the same “its within the rules”
        They can all live in their properties unless their not residential properties
        But then they wouldnt get any subsidy would they

        The Geens put their house into a super scheme then rented it to themselves
13. Santi 13

    17 December 2010 at 8:09 am

    Sloppy? Not a chance.

    Phil Goff joins the disgraceful Bill English’s club of greedy double-dipping politicians. Another disgraceful event in the chequered career of this forgettable Labour leader.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/4467939/Goff-accuses-Nats-of-sting-over-apartment
14. just saying 14

    17 December 2010 at 8:18 am

    Can someone explain this – I’ve searched for an answer myself.

    Is it or is it not true that, Goff continued to collect parliamentary subsidies for his Wellington rental accommodation (apparently 28,000 pa) despite owning an apartment in the city, after calling Blinglish on his similar, but better paying rorting?

    If not, when did Goff stop claiming the subsidy? If he stopped claiming the subsidy at the time he was found out and promised to sell the property, it should be very easy to sort this matter out.

    However, his supporters here seem to be saying that any monies he received were “within the rules” and that other MPs were also claiming the subsidy despite owning a home in wellington, rather than that he did not continue to claim monies to which he was not morally entitled.

    As I recall, Blinglish went to great lengths to “arrange his affairs” and sought legal advice, to ensure that his rorting was also within the rules. It doesn’t change the fact that he was ripping us off. If Goff continued to claim the subsidy, and tried to take the heat off himself by insincerely promising the sell the property, he is not the victim of a witchhunt. MSM may be blatantly and persistently biased against the left, but Goff is the leader of the opposition and this is a fair cop.

    More importantly, he is the leader of the Labour Party and ‘Labour’ used to mean something. Something about representing working people and their families, and preventing them from being ripped off by the rich and powerful.

    How much is the median wage again?
15. big bruv 15

    17 December 2010 at 8:26 am

    Lol…..he who laughs last…..

    This thread is hilarious, lefties bending over backwards to justify Goff’s theft of public funds.

    “Now watch as the RWNJs completely ignore the fundamental point that Goff lives outside of Wellington and is entitled to an accommodation allowance.”

    Micky ignores the fact that Goff promised to sell his flat, the fact is that Goff lied.
    • The Voice of Reason 15.1

      17 December 2010 at 9:10 am

      Speaking of lying thieves, bludge, here’s that website you’ve been looking for:

      http://www.wikileaks.nl/support.html
16. hobbit 16

    17 December 2010 at 8:30 am

    Goofy’s too stupid to be involved in a decent scandal. However, it’s just another shot in the foot for him. Least people know who he is, now, though..
    • prism 16.1

      17 December 2010 at 10:09 am

      Yeah Hobbit you know about difficulty with big (and hairy) feet. Gets publicity though, and as you say gave Goff another moment’s fame.
17. Nick K 17

    17 December 2010 at 8:33 am

    So Goff did nothing wrong. I agree.

    Neither did Rodney Hide when taking his overseas travel.
    • Craig Glen Eden 17.1

      17 December 2010 at 9:20 am

      Yup the perk buster turned luster he did nothing wrong other than his total political reason for being ” perk busting ” front was totally blown.
      • Swampy 17.1.1

        18 December 2010 at 7:50 pm

        Seems Mrt Goff fancioes him self as a perk buster to
    • Bunji 17.2

      17 December 2010 at 10:48 am

      John Key had said that his Ministers weren’t to take their partners (mainly in an effort to make Chris Carter look bad). I’d say there was a lot of value having your partner there to help with long overseas trips, but that was the PM’s decision.

      Whilst he didn’t make it illegal it was clearly against what the PM had said was appropriate. But Craig makes the larger point. You can’t have your whole political role as a perk-buster and then take as many perks as you’re allowed to the letter of the law…
      • Lanthanide 17.2.1

        17 December 2010 at 12:47 pm

        I’m pretty sure Key was talking about ministerial business and flights.

        Rodney used his MP’s benefit to pay for his and his girlfriends travel. The money came from Parliamentary Services, not Ministerial.
18. mickysavage 18

    17 December 2010 at 8:49 am

    To all the RWNJs out there. The interweb thingy is a wonderful thing. It contains the rules for MPs seeking an accommodation allowance. It states:

    3.32 Wellington accommodation expense payment
    (1) A member whose primary place of residence is outside the
    Wellington commuting area is entitled to have the member’s
    actual and reasonable expenses in respect of Wellington ac-
    commodation paid if—
    (a) the member is not provided with a residence at the pub-
    lic cost; and
    (b) the member uses as Wellington accommodation—
    (i) accommodation owned by that member; or
    (ii) accommodationrentedbythatmemberonacon-
    tinuous basis for use in lieu of overnight accom-
    modation; or
    (iii) accommodation in commercial premises; or
    (iv) other private accommodation.
    (2) No principal component of any mortgage payment or any
    capital improvement to premises may be claimed under this
    clause.
    (3) The maximum amount that may be paid under this clause in
    any year is $24,000 (including goods and services tax).
    (4) The maximum amount that may be paid under subclause
    (1)(b)(iii) or (iv) in respect of any 1 night is—
    (a) $160 (including goods and services tax) if the accom-
    modation is in commercial premises; or
    (b) $50 (including goods and services tax) in the case of
    other premises.

    So Goff is entitled to an accommodation allowance even if he was living in property that he owned.

    The difference is that Blinglish told a fib to get an accommodation allowance when he really did live in Wellington.

    The full document is at http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/E7F3E3AF-6CAB-4AD2-ACA9-A13B284BDBD0/154481/ParliamentaryTravelAccommodationAttendanceandCommu.pdf
    • Santi 18.1

      17 December 2010 at 8:55 am

      Don’t waste your talents micky. Join the Chinese circus as an outstanding contorsionist.
      • mickysavage 18.1.1

        17 December 2010 at 8:57 am

        Care to address the argument?
        • OleOlebiscuitBarrell 18.1.1.1

          17 December 2010 at 9:02 am

          That’s not his problem. His problem is that he said he would sell it and he didn’t.
          • Bunji 18.1.1.1.1

            17 December 2010 at 10:49 am

            Have you tried selling a house recently? The market’s dead. It’s the great economy that National’s managing…
            • OleOlebiscuitBarrell 18.1.1.1.1.1

              17 December 2010 at 11:12 am

              http://www.realtor.co.nz/K/buying-selling-trends-statistics-real-estate-market/_I.993034/_N.2

              The national median number of days to sell shortened to 41 in October from 43 in September and August
            • Armchair Critic 18.1.1.1.1.2

              17 December 2010 at 11:24 am

              Have you tried selling a house recently?
              Yes, I have
              The market’s dead.
              Yes, it is.
              Point is, Goff said he would do something and hasn’t yet done it (and that’s a kind interpretation). He’s had the property for a while, so whatever it sells for will probably be more than the purchase price and costs.
              Sure, the property will sell for less than its value a few years back, and from that perspective he’d be making a loss, but so what? Back then people were paying too much for property anyway. How much does he want to be PM? Does he want it enough to hypothetically lose some money on his investment property? If the answer is no then he’s not fit to be PM anyway.
            • daveg 18.1.1.1.1.3

              17 December 2010 at 2:48 pm

              One of the biggest problems with our economy is that people think property speculation is a genuine way of growing an economy. As the Reserve Bank Governor has said it just isn’t. Perhaps a lesson lefties have yet to learn.
            • Gosman 18.1.1.1.1.4

              17 December 2010 at 3:03 pm

              Why does Goff feel the need to make a particular level of profit on this investment anyway?

              I presume if he sold the place in the current market he would still make a capital gain on the amount he bought it for over a decade ago.

              Doesn’t he already get a gold plated superannunation scheme?
              • mickysavage …

                17 December 2010 at 3:12 pm

                Gosman

                Have you asked Heatley, Mapp and Collins the same question?
              • lprent …

                17 December 2010 at 3:16 pm

                Perhaps he is busy? If I have problems managing to find time to deal with real estate people, then godknows what it is like on his schedule.
              • prism …

                17 December 2010 at 7:37 pm

                Why don’t you find something substantial in the public sphere to think about Gosman. Goff’s personal finances and life is his to deal with not for us to poke our noses into.
        • mark m 18.1.1.2

          17 December 2010 at 7:12 pm

          care to address the argument Mickey?
          • mickysavage 18.1.1.2.1

            17 December 2010 at 7:53 pm

            I am waiting for a real rwnj argument to address.
    • just saying 18.2

      17 December 2010 at 9:17 am

      Thanks for the clarification MS.

      Did the “actual” expenses that Goff claimed include his rent?
      • just saying 18.2.1

        17 December 2010 at 9:43 am

        ps. I addressed the argument.
    • Swampy 18.3

      18 December 2010 at 7:54 pm

      If he had a mortgage on the property
      “No principal component of any mortgage payment or any
      capital improvement to premises may be claimed under this
      clause”
      No money for at least part of a mortgage payment

      If he rents out then pays the mortgage and has some left over AND gets the tax payer to pay his rent on another apartment then he is doing a lot better

      Or another scenario. He owns a property and there is no mortgage on it. Therefore he gets no money to pay his costs. Or he can rent it out, pocket the rent and get PS to pay the rent on another house is living in.

      So you need to adjust your views of this
      All “within the rules” you know
19. Nick K 19

    17 December 2010 at 8:54 am

    Yep. And Rodney Hide was entitled to take his partner on an overseas trip.
    • burt 19.1

      17 December 2010 at 4:22 pm

      But that was different because Rodney isn’t in a party with a red logo and we all know it’s different for people in parties with red logos.
20. Craig Glen Eden 20

    17 December 2010 at 9:11 am

    Mickey you are dealing with RWNJ they dont get it for two reasons.

    1/ one they don’t want to, it doesn’t suit their political agenda they run with any shit even when they know its not true ala Gingercrush

    2/ they are so stupid they actually cant see the difference between some who lies about where their home is and were they primarily sleep at night and two some one who is correctly claiming the out of town allowance like they are suppose to ala bid Bruv aka thick as pig shit.

    Anti spam word ‘impossible’
    • Swampy 20.1

      18 December 2010 at 7:59 pm

      I’ll just make this last comment because otherwise the mod will say Ive put too many comments in here

      If he lived in his house he can get the costs of mortgage paid for but not all of it (no principal) so he either gets part or all of the cost met. Either way he gets no benefit from it.

      But he can rent that house to someone and make money off it after paying the morthgage because that is what renting is supposed to do.

      Then PS pays his rent of the house he is actually living in.

      See the difference.

      Now you may claim it is “within the rules” but so was Englishs. And like I said in other posts it is the same roughly as the Greens super trust renting out their house to Green MPs who got the rent paid by PS so that the money went into their pockets. “Within the rules”. Because the rules are easy to bend aren’t they.

      [lprent: I don’t mind when it is part of a discussion. It is the blocks of 20-40 comments overnight that I objected to, especially when I’m reading them in the morning and I read the same comment content several times. It arouses my anti-troll instincts – specifically volume trolling (trying to fill a post with the same comment to drown out others). I have come to realize that you aren’t actually trolling – just batch processing. So I cut you more slack than I would for others doing the same thing. ]
21. Nick K 21

    17 December 2010 at 9:19 am

    What about the LWNJ who shouted from the rooftops when Rodney Hide took travel that was within the rules?
22. Craig Glen Eden 22

    17 December 2010 at 9:24 am

    See 17.1 Dumb arse read it slooowly though,no no slower NiCK K
23. Nick K 23

    17 December 2010 at 9:31 am

    Thanks Craig. I missed 17.1 No need for the abuse and sarcasm.
24. prism 24

    17 December 2010 at 10:02 am

    Goff should never have said he would sell his property implying that was needed to comply fully with the rules. He is entitled to make investments like anyone else and there was no reason to be apologetic. He is entitled to a payment to help with his accommodation in Wellington as his home is elsewhere. The interviewer this a.m. on RadioNZ kept asking whether he was selling his apartment as if she had found some rort to display. Think again girlie and work on masticating real news not chewing the cud of irrelevant information.
25. Jan 25

    17 December 2010 at 10:10 am

    Not even sloppy – From my reading of events what has been reported is not even sloppy. a) Selling would have meant evicting tenants. b) If you have to live in 2 two places (and you do) then it\’s quite legitimate to expect to claim for the expense of maintainling 2 sets of accommadation. c)the media pack laziness cannot differentiate between people who live in one town and those who live in two. d) Either Labour is missing in action on many issues except hand in till expoits of the government OR – the media pack in NZ is such a blunt instrument issues are rarely dissected adequately.. Generally I suspect the latter. However the most important issue is that, by focussing on \”rorts\” Labour is playing straight into the hands of a party who would have no problem finding 60 gentleman farmers, property developers, speculators, ex-currency traders and the like to fill it\’s ranks for little in pay and conditions. The other day Phil Goff was having to defend not only the leader\’s budget for research and communications – but that it was private. For pities sake.
    • Swampy 25.1

      18 December 2010 at 8:02 pm

      Maintainging Two places of accom is one thing
      Maintaining Three and two of them happen to be in the same town and get a subsidy is another

      Perhaps youve forgotten (undertandable) Philidia Bunkle owned a townshouse in Thorndon and rented it out then got a mnisterial house somewhere on the grouns she didnt have a place of residence in the electorate… or whatever… very similar and she got told to resign from Cabient
26. OleOlebiscuitBarrell 26

    17 December 2010 at 10:19 am

    Selling would not have meant evicting the tenants.

    Once again: he promised to sell the flat. He didn’t.

    You can’t have it both ways. Either:

    1. There was nothing wrong with owning the flat and claiming the entitlements. In which case, why did he promise to sell it in the first place? Was it just hollow, holier-than-thou grandstanding; or

    2. There was something wrong with owning the flat and claiming the entitlements. In which case, he should have sold it.

    The problem is with the promise he made.
    • TightyRighty 26.1

      17 December 2010 at 10:29 am

      No, the problem here is that when Phil comes over all holier than thou about Pansy Wong, Bill English etc but neglects to get his own house in order, it’s hypocrisy of the highest order. Not that mickey or eddie wouldn’t love the practise at the mental gymnastics required to justify anything the precious labour party does.
    • Anne 26.2

      17 December 2010 at 10:55 am

      “Selling would not have meant evicting the tenants.”

      True OObB, but if you have owned property which has been rented for a long time you will know that it’s almost inevitible there will be repair and maintainance work to be carried out usually requiring the property to be empty for a period of time.
    • Jeremy Harris 26.3

      18 December 2010 at 9:40 pm

      Not to mention the fact that it was untenanted for a period after he made the promise…
27. Daveski 27

    17 December 2010 at 10:32 am

    I’ve got to say Eddie never fails to disappoint. It’s a pity iPredict didn’t have the option of which poster would come up with a patsy response full of the usual double standards. I had my money on eddie and he’s delivered as usual!!
28. randal 28

    17 December 2010 at 10:44 am

    it aint a fair cop.
    as long as he doesnt use it for double dipping then he is ok.
    the tories are running permanent smear campaigns on the flimisest of assumptions yet they receive front page billing in the daily rags.
    this is reporting gone mad but what the heck.
    thats the tory way.
    dont have a programme just sh*t on everything and hope some sticks.
    • charpier 28.1

      17 December 2010 at 11:02 am

      How many thousands of other NZers have said in the past year they’d sell their house but haven’t?
    • prism 28.2

      17 December 2010 at 11:02 am

      Yeah randal reminds me of the hippotamus defecating I once saw. Uses its tail like a fan and spreads the liquid gunk far and wide. Watch out if you’re visiting that part of the zoo – make sure you face the head. We also have to eyeball NACT supporters to check what’s in their devious minds. As their song goes ‘Anything you can do I can do better’ – even if its being holier than thou.
29. Herodotus 29

    17 December 2010 at 10:53 am

    1st Phil was to sell the place: The when found out that he is still the owner
    I was wainting until the current tennats vacate- But from the report it is up for tennacy again
    Then the bathroom and other thing require attention-but cannot do anything until next year
    then there is the justification of that it is within the rules.
    No matter now untasteful Bill actions are they to are also with in the rules – and a Lab Speaker of the house at the time agreed- So why was the rules not changed then.
    So when Phil commented he was to sell the place why is he quoted “I have been exploring the options of renting and selling the property” So he has current intentions now of not selling.
    No wonder people are having issues with Phil, he has by not keeping on message, just fueling the situation. Now who knows why he has gone back on his word.
    A very small issue that Phil initially defused now with him thinking of keeping the property – Not a good look, perception is everything and Phil has undone the good work against Bill. Lab 2 Nat 1, when it should have been a walk over.
    captcha justifying – nice Marty to leave a smile on our faces.
30. TightyRighty 30

    17 December 2010 at 11:17 am

    TightyRighty 1
    15 December 2010 at 10:30 am
    The last time labour went after someone on expenses, it massively blew up in their faces. One national scalp to three labour ones. None of them had the grace to resign however. I wonder who will get poo splattered this time in labour. I doubt they’ll have the grace to resign.

    I am good. so very good.
31. Jared 31

    17 December 2010 at 11:18 am

    I posted about this 6 weeks ago (http://thestandard.org.nz/ministers-housing-claims-up-17-as-rorts-continue/#comment-267101)

    I also posted a question asking if it was sold on Red Alert, only to be banned by Trevor Mallard, thats Labour Party Transparency for you.

    [lprent: Based on your comments here that get you banned occasionally. My guess that it was not the question you asked that got you banned – it was likely the the way that you asked it that got you banned. It has been my observation that you tend to be a slow learner when it comes to behaviour. ]
    • The Voice of Reason 31.1

      17 December 2010 at 11:51 am

      I’m pretty sure you were banned for being an idiot, Jared, not for the question. Perhaps you could supply a link so that readers can make up their own minds?
    • Jared 31.2

      17 December 2010 at 1:59 pm

      It might be hard for you to believe, but I was actually banned for asking whether Phil Goff had sold his apartment like he promised he would. There was no mitigating circumstances, just Trevor Mallard in a bad mood. It took Chris Hipkins to reactive my account. I would post a copy of the question (from memory it was something along the lines of “Just following up from last year, has Phil Goff sold his apartment like he promised”). Its ok if the media ask it, not if a constituent does.
      • lprent 31.2.1

        17 December 2010 at 2:22 pm

        If it was just that then I think you’re probably right – bad day for a moderator. Happens even to a even-tempered, well balanced, non-confrontational and overall really nice person like myself*. 😈

        Moderators aren’t known for being nice people – it is just something that you have to live with. And Trevor is still coming to grip with the role.

        *Urrgh even the thought of that description makes me want to tear stumps out with my bare hands (and some plastique).
32. Graeme 32

    17 December 2010 at 11:21 am

    my issue is with the use of the staffer. thats taxpayer funded resource used for private business. we just had a depature from parliament for that.
33. Blue 33

    17 December 2010 at 11:21 am

    I take this latest ‘scandal’ as good news. The Nats are feeling threatened, it seems. And with good reason.

    The whole issue of Parliamentary perks, rorting and expenses has dogged their entire Parliamentary term and they’re acquiring a reputation for dodginess.

    With next year being election year, Phil can take this as a heads-up that the Nats are going to pull out all the stops and get nasty.
    • burt 33.1

      17 December 2010 at 4:27 pm

      More like; The whole issue of Parliamentary perks, rorting and expenses has been exposed and is being dealt with in this parliamentary term. Remember the new standard of openness and accountability promised by Helen Clark in 2002 – National are delivering it all be it slowly and with some collateral damage.
      • Jum 33.1.1

        17 December 2010 at 8:20 pm

        Burt,
        Collateral damage – claytons for one fifth of soldiers expected to be killed in war. You shouldn’t go using that disgusting ‘speak’ in relation to Goff if I were you, given he gave far more for his country than anyone should ever have to do.

        But in this context I expect you mean the unemployed and their families and all the crap that will now be their lot because of your leader’s inability to make this a fair and prosperous country; taking away the minimum wage standard is not a good way of doing that because that is next on JKeyll’s list. Killing off one fifth of the future of hope for the 350,000 unemployed and casual workers.
34. Daveski 34

    17 December 2010 at 11:29 am

    The question here surely is not about Goff’s actions – they are perfectly reasonable and acceptable – but about justification “it was in the rules”. It appears to me that this line only appears to be acceptable if it is red corner where different standards apply if it’s the blue corner.

    As for a politician not doing what they said they would do? Why do we waste our time on such trivial matters?? He may still sell it but I would readily understand that there is a time and place to sell a house and it surely aint the time and place right now. That said, would such a charitable interpretation been provided had it been a National politician and I bet the answer would be no. To that extent, I think Goff and many here have been hoist on their own petard.
    • burt 34.1

      17 December 2010 at 4:29 pm

      It appears to me that this line only appears to be acceptable if it is red corner where different standards apply if it’s the blue corner.

      Well said.
35. O2B 35

    17 December 2010 at 12:28 pm

    I may have missed something but I can’t see what Goff has done wrong, and if he has, it would seem a pinch on what English did.

    I don’t know the facts on his rental property in Wellington but has the question been asked – does it really suit him as a property for Goff to live in? If it doesn’t suit, how is he rorting the system? I used to live in Christchurch and have a rental property. It not flash but fine as an investment. However I have NO desire to live in it, as it doesn’t suit my current circumstances.

    Consider this: an MP owns a studio flat, which is tenanted, in Wellington as an investment. His/her primary place of residence is a 4 bedroom house in Auckland. However, the studio does not suit for him/her to live in. Parliamentary services procures a 2 bedroom apartment, which is more suitable as it allows for them to have family (partner, maybe the youngest child) stay with for periods. The studio flat in that instance would be unsuitable but they retain the studio as investment, still tenanted, should their circumstances on a parliamentary level change ie. they leave parliament.

    Does this make sense? I know it hypothetical and it may not apply to Goff, but I’m sure it happens.

    KB
    • burt 35.1

      17 December 2010 at 4:30 pm

      OK, so he’s not as bad as English so therefore we should move on…. bloody hell it’s taken me years to teach my children that pointing and screaming “he did it too” won’t take away from the fact THEY also did it.

      Just out of interest – how old are you ?
      • felix 35.1.1

        18 December 2010 at 10:38 am

        burt you’re a moron.

        English lives in Wellington. He lies and says he lives in the South Island so he can get money for away-from-home accommodation in Wellington which any fool can see he shouldn’t qualify for as he already lives there.

        Goff lives in Auckland. He gets money for accommodation in Wellington as he doesn’t live there.
        • Swampy 35.1.1.1

          18 December 2010 at 8:06 pm

          He gets money to go to a house he doesnt own. So far so good
          He also has a house that he rents out.

          now if he lived in his own house he could get some money to cover the costs of the mortgage – but not as much as if he can get more renting it out than he can get from the accomm supplement and the rent free Taxpayer funded house somewhere else in Wellington
          • felix 35.1.1.1.1

            19 December 2010 at 6:44 pm

            And…?

            burt thinks Goff has done the same thing English has, I’ve explained why that’s bullshit.

            WTF your point is I have no idea.
      • O2B 35.1.2

        18 December 2010 at 4:49 pm

        I’m 34.
36. grumpy 36

    17 December 2010 at 1:03 pm

    I also cannot see what Goff has done wrong, nor can I see that English broke the rules. However, when Labour whipped up hysteria over English, you would have thought their own leader would have made sure he didn\’t get caught on the same issue.
    • Daveski 36.1

      17 December 2010 at 1:17 pm

      That was my sentiments. However, there are other issues that obviously eddie and others will simply overlook in the usual partisan way. KB has obviously a blue perspective of this and the role of a staffer clearly is naive at best. More interestingly, it’s Goff’s ridiculous defence that shows how out of touch he is or how incompetent he is in terms of managing the media. He is currently Labour’s greatest election liability and the blind support of eddie and others here and elsewhere is actually National’s greatest asset.
      • O2B 36.1.1

        17 December 2010 at 2:36 pm

        Grumpy…. it’s not really the same issue.

        Bill English’s primary place of residence is in Wellington – and has been for 20 years – while Goff’s is in Auckland. English has had the taxpayer, via Parliamentary Services, rent his home (payable to the English family trust, thus reducing any mortgages associated with the property) while also giving him his out of town ministerial housing allowance (which could also be used the reduce any mortgages associated with the property), effectively ‘double dipping’. Goff as I understand hasn’t lived in his flat, or if he has, not for some time.

        It’s almost like renting your own property from a company that you own, maximising your personal expenses and thus reducing your taxable income. Some people do this and they too are rorting the system. I wonder if English did this how he would explain it to IRD….
37. Treetop 37

    17 December 2010 at 1:17 pm

    Parliamentary and ministerial spending on travel and accommodation needs to be sorted out properly in the New Year.

    Were Goff’s flat in Dunedin or New Plymouth he would be entitled to 90 % paid travel to visit his home for maintenance (mow the lawn) regardless of it being occupied or leased.

    I think that it is wrong for any MP to be critised for owning a property in Wellington as the location should not matter. When a property is owned in Wellington it is unfair to expect a MP to live in it. Even if an MP resides in Wellington, to me they too have an entitlement to accommodation costs.

    Every MP has a life outside of politics, if Goff wants to retain his Wellington flat for when he leaves politics he is entitled to do this.

    Goff has stated that he resides in Auckland.

    Accommodation needs to be set at one rate for MPs and another rate for ministers and both need to be administered by a new section which will be transparent.
38. Frederick 38

    17 December 2010 at 1:55 pm

    Exactly Grumpy – English broke no rules, his housing situation was absolutely transparent in that he had sought and gained approval for his housing situation. But, as we all agree in these belt-tightening times and as English himself conceded “it wasn’t a good look’ and he paid the money back.

    There the matter should have ended but labour/The Standard continue to go on and on and atempt to create the perception that he was found out by some fantastic detective work, lied etc when it was only because his housing arrangements were disclosed (a long with many others) in the revealing of MPs expenses/claims. Yet even on Wednesday the following question was asked in the house

    Hon Trevor Mallard: Can the public also expect, in the next year, for him to repay the half a million dollars that he got from pretending to live in Dipton?

    Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the member knows, all those matters, including certification by his colleague Margaret Wilson of my living circumstances, were dealt with by the Auditor-General

    Precisesly and the correct answer from English. Goff to my mind hasn’t broken any rules and neither had English. Can the likes of Mallard now just move on. And The Standard too – its getting very tiresome.
39. Deadly_NZ 39

    17 December 2010 at 3:17 pm

    At least Goff did not hide the house in a family trust and still claim $$$ that he was not entitled to.
    • burt 39.1

      17 December 2010 at 4:34 pm

      So he’s not as sophisticated as English so he’s done nothing wrong – or was it he wasn’t as bad as English so we should just move on…

      Come on, just say it – it’s not fair to just punish Goff when others were doing it too even if Goff said he would stop – others didn’t so it’s not fair.

      I find it really interesting though that we are not hearing the old chestnut of “the rules were confusing” which normally accompany the “others did it too” apologist rants.
      • mickysavage 39.1.1

        17 December 2010 at 4:47 pm

        Burt I will make it really simple for you.

        Blinglish told a lie. He said he lived in Dipton when he lived in Wellington.

        Goff is acting within the rules. he has done nothing wrong, just like Collins, Mapp and Heatley.

        You will say that Goff lied when he said he would sell the property but he has not, he did not say when he would sell it.

        Just to repeat Goff is allowed to own the flat and get accommodation expenses. Blinglish is not allowed to lie.

        You RWNJs go on a feeding frenzy at the slightest hint that something may not quite be perfect.
        • higherstandard 39.1.1.1

          17 December 2010 at 5:04 pm

          Mythbusters should have come to you you’re clearly an expert.

          http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbusters-polishing-a-turd.html
        • Don (moderator troll) 39.1.1.2

          17 December 2010 at 7:45 pm

          It’s odd that someone would post under a hijacked name like this, using a photo that emphasises the poster has nothing to do with the identity. Pretentious arrogance. If someone was able to know their famous identity was being misused like this I think they’d be bloody savage.

          [lprent: what is odd (and so so pretentious) is some shallow idiot like you saying something like that (for the first time I can recall). Read the about so you know where you have strayed into, then read the policy to find out who sets the rules on behavior here. Then consider that MS has had literally thousands of comment here. Since some of the moderators are in the labour party (like me) we’d have registered our disapproval long ago (probably by changing his label) if we didn’t think he wore it well.

          We don’t need or want some pompous self inflated wet behind the ears whoppie doll like you trying to determine behavior here. Do it again and I will demonstrate what I do to people with bad behavior for their educational self- improvement. Or you could just stick to commenting on things you know something about. ]
          • Don 39.1.1.2.1

            18 December 2010 at 12:59 pm

            I “know something about” the real MJ Savage, and I was a Labour voter.
        • big bruv 39.1.1.3

          18 December 2010 at 7:44 am

          “Blinglish told a lie.”

          Oh Micky, you really are an idiot.

          If Blinglish lied then so did Goff, remember how Goff said he would sell his flat?

          If that was not bad enough he (Goff) is now using his staffers to manage the property.

          Why not just admit that you (and the left in general) are happy to have two sets of rules, one set that must be strictly adhered to for National and ACT MP’s and one set that Labour and the Greens can break as much as they like.
40. Irascible 40

    17 December 2010 at 8:10 pm

    Surely the difference between English & Goff in this debate is that: English was actually living in the house. He owned it and had been in permanent residence there for years. He claimed to live in Dipton, a community he patently only visited for election purposes. He placed his house in a Trust. Claimed that he was now renting the property from the Trust (which is clearly in English’s world – not himself or his wife ) and therefore entitled to claim rent from the tax payer. The money going into English’s bank account as a profit, – extra wages. A direct personal gain for the English Family Trust. This was clearly a rort- a clear example of Troughing!!
    Goff, on the other hand, owned an apartment which had been rented out. He was not living in the apartment, had not been for some years. He clearly resides in Auckland. His wife & family are physically there. The decision was made not to evict the tenants when he was no longer using the Ministerial house he had while in Government. He then rented an apartment for his own personal use for which he is entitled to claim an allowance. This allowance does not go into Goff’s bank account but to the land-lord of the apartment. There is no personal gain to Goff in this transaction. Therefore there is no rort, no troughing and nothing questionable in Goff’s behaviour.
    Now that the apartment Goff owns is vacant he can sell it and offer it for short term rental while maintenance is completed. He could, even, decide to reoccupy it himself. If the apartment is mortgage free and he doesn’t take the rent allowance then he is squeaky clean and totally honorable, unlike English who disguised the ownership in a Trust.
    The whole story becomes the typical lazy journalist feed beat up orchestrated from John Key’s office to take the heat off the Wong-gate scandals.
    • Anne 40.1

      17 December 2010 at 8:36 pm

      Hear hear Irascible.
      The best part is that: it aint going to work!
      What’s more, the fact that the ‘information’ emanated from the Prime Minister’s Office indicates Key was donkey deep in the libellous smut.

      It’s time the good citizens of NZ woke up to the truth about the man they elected to the highest office in the land.
      • mark m 40.1.1

        18 December 2010 at 7:36 am

        The citizens of New Zealand have woken up to the lying , hypocrite who has put his name forward as a potential PM for this country and they dont like what they are seeing of Phil.

        Wongs guilt is that her husband did business that bought income and jobs to this country instead of having massages , hiring limos and visiting resorts like Labour spouses.

        You are the one needing to wake up Anne.
        70% of the population already have
        • Irascible 40.1.1.1

          19 December 2010 at 2:07 am

          The Wongs’ rorting was designed to bring money to their pockets and NO jobs to New Zealand. All their business activities are located in China- that’s where the jobs are created or workers exploited.
          Yes I agree Mark m the public are disillusioned with the lying hypocrite who has put his name forward as PM of New Zealand… his name is John Key. He is a man who declares “Read my lips… there will be no GST increase on my watch, there will be no asset sales” ………………..(until next electoral cycle) in the meantime I’ll ready the store to flog off the family silver to my Hawaiian mates just as I did in selling the legislature to Warner Bros.”.
    • just saying 40.2

      17 December 2010 at 8:52 pm

      Rent from tenants + rent subsidy from taxpayers minus rent to landlord = 2 x rents to Goff = personal gain

      However, if Goff lived in his apartment…
      • just saying 40.2.1

        17 December 2010 at 9:03 pm

        God, what atrocious maths. 2-1=1 Can’t get much simpler than that.

        Still, the substance of what I was saying stands.
        • Craig Glen Eden 40.2.1.1

          18 December 2010 at 1:24 am

          The flat Goff owns in Wellington is not his primary residence he rents it out to others its a rental, his home is in Auckland (primary residence) so is his electorate. When he goes to Wellington which is not wear he lives he gets his accommodation payed for just like every other MPs and Ministers, no rort wether they are red or blue team.

          But when your home (primary residence) is in Wellington and you dont go home in the weekends to your electorate but you claim that a home in your electorate is your primary residence even though your children and wife don’t live their, haven’t lived their for years that is a rort. Infact you know its a rort so what you do is you take that home in Wellington and you transfer it into the ownership of a trust so you can say oh I dont own that home the English Trust its not mine so the tax payer pays for it that is a rort.If on the other hand wife and kids live in Dipton and you travel home in the weekends their is no problem with having accommodation payed for in Wellington.
    • Swampy 40.3

      18 December 2010 at 8:11 pm

      Yes there is a possible gain which may actually be a real gain.

      That is if the difference between renting out the property and what he would have been paid in subsidy if he had lived in it himself, is a net profit.

      Because the idea of renting is to make a profit. So instead of living in the house and the PS only pays him PART of the mortgage and he has to pay the rest himself, he can rent it out and has some net profit and so he can get personal gain.
41. john k 41

    18 December 2010 at 2:45 am

    specking of crapoil i see his dad is in the news
    A former MP facing fraud charges involving nearly $2 million will find out next week whether he can keep secret his identity
42. Ed 42

    18 December 2010 at 9:45 am

    I cannot understand why the house was not sold a year ago. It could have easily been sold to Phil Goff’s blind trust – or if he didn’t have one of those it could have been created. There is just no reason for any MP to be taking time from their work to manage private investments.

    There have been news reports that English is no longer receiving payments for accommodation – is that true? Or is it just that the previous allowance for Ministers has been replaced with another benefit (that just happens to have increased costs)? Does that new basis – a payment that does not depend on personal circumstances – also apply to Phil Goff?
43. Murray 43

    18 December 2010 at 5:06 pm

    On one side we’ve got Good Ol Smile N Wave and the other side, Good Ol Sloppy but Nothing More.
    Fits Goff to a T.

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 16 December 2010 at 8:06 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS