English shouldn't get a cent

Print

Mon, 21 Sep 2009 8:45a.m.

Bill English

Bill English

Bill English should cut the pretence. He doesn't live in Dipton and hasn't for more than a decade.

He and his family made a choice to be together in Wellington in the 90s. They made the decision for family and personal reasons. The English's wanted to be together - and they knew their Dad's work was going to have him in Wellington for years to come. They wanted to be a family. It's old fashioned and honourable. Good on you.

They have a house in the capital, the kids go to the school there, two of them are enrolled to vote in Wellington Central and his wife is a G.P. in the city.

And until last month Bill English claimed $950 a week to live in his own house. He now claims half that, the same as an ordinary MP - about $24,000. He paid back $14,000 because he thought it was a 'bad look'. You're not kidding.

But he will soon, as a result of the changes put in place by John Key, be paid $30,000 a year to help him pay off his own mortgage. In effect English is in line for a $6,000 pay rise shortly.

Remember this is a house owned by a trust, his wife is the trustee. Bill English apparently has no pecuniary interest; he removed himself as a trustee this year for “family and personal reasons”. Legally - he has no interest in the house.

As a consequence of the changes he made to his affairs, the house was rented back to Ministerial Services as an 'Official Ministerial Residence’.

It's a joke Bill - and you were caught out.

We all accept you represent Clutha-Southland. We all accept you are the local MP. But when you are preaching financial restraint to voters wouldn't the following option be better.

Why don't you claim an out of town allowance when you visit Dipton. Ask the Speaker to approve it. I'm sure Lockwood Smith will do it. It will save the taxpayer tens of thousands of dollars on the current arrangement.

Because you don't live in Dipton. You live here. And Labour won't stop the attacks until you make another mea culpa.

English looks mortally wounded as he moves around Parliament. His mandate in this recession has been battered and bruised by this encounter. When was the last time he made a big speech covered by the mainstream media?

He has been low-key since it all surfaced. Now Labour intends to carry on the attacks and stretch out the pain. There are two options really. English either resigns or is sacked and I can't see that happening. Or he fronts up and accepts he lives in Wellington and will no longer claim a cent for doing so.

The problem with the last idea is that Labour will claim he owes $400,000, because he has claimed the out of town allowance for years. So Labour should accept any move that for what it is - and leave him alone if he does it.

But it's the right thing to do. English must put an end to this farce. Labour has the Finance Minister in a vice and it's starting to tighten it.

You cannot have your Finance Minister defending his personal financial matters on a daily basis. English must do the right thing by this Government and by John Key.

He needs to drop the bitter and nasty attacks on the media. His language in private is unbecoming and unprofessional. He's on $276,000 and he has a job to do. Get on with it Bill, but do the right thing, and stop trying to muscle up behind the scenes - it's getting you nowhere.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

12/10/2009 5:28:38 p.m.

Bob Jarman wrote:

Attention Duncan Garner Hi Duncan We met at the Harbour rugby game last Sat and I offered a story on family violence and how men get shafted. Also that the taxpayer pays too much for the process and that Australia have a mediation before court policy that avoids unnecessary costs and dislocation of families etc. I want the Prime minister to look at this social problem and resolve some of the issues by way of taking the less punitive approach to the problem whilst maintaining the good work against violence in the home. Your advice on how to proceed with this campaign would be most welcome. My details, as discussed, are 021 555 840 921 99999 ext 7111(work)

11/10/2009 8:37:20 p.m.

Jan wrote:

Dont get me confused with another jan..

23/09/2009 10:55:48 a.m.

Sean wrote:

Matt.

“We as a country should have been more concerned if our Finance Minister hadn’t figured out the absolutely best possible deal within the limits of the law. I myself would rather have someone clever charged with steering the financial position of our country.”

I think you are being too kind to English. His actions may or may not be with in the law.

If Bill English was quite correct in identifying a house in Dipton as his family’s primary residence, he is acting legally.

If the home Bill English and his family have lived in for well over a decade, administered by a trust run by his wife, in the city in which they have worked and go to school for years,is English’s primary residence - then isn’t the money obtained through the claim it was not his primary residence, money obtained in a fraudulent manner?

If you had an employee who was filing false expenses claims for thousands of dollars, would you congratulate yourself on the intelligence of your employee, or would you dismiss them for theft?

22/09/2009 1:16:04 p.m.

jp wood wrote:

The real problem is that politians are able to use trusts to evade the scrutiny of the register of member's interests.
If you take the public coin and are responsible for the allocation of national resources you must be bound to reveal your actual interests. As it stands the minister for the environment might own a large tranche of shares in a coal mining company or the minister of housing might own forty rental properties but we would have no way of knowing if they held it in trust. Without knowing this we are in no position to know if they have conflicts of interest when they promulgate policy.

22/09/2009 11:49:37 a.m.

Kerry wrote:

Oh Black Jack, I was under the impression one gets into politics to SERVE the country....not themselves!!

English knows hes pulled a swifty and he needs to do the right thing. Can you imagine the uproar if this had been Michael Cullen??? THe tories would be whipping themselves into a frenzy demanding resignations left right and centre!

They get paid good money for a job in public service...if he wants more cash resign and get a job in the private sector!

22/09/2009 8:22:27 a.m.

Black Jack wrote:

How pathetic , get over yourself, you want to work his hours? you want them to investigate and publicly discuss your situation? grow up and get a real job or give some real news items. You are in the magic spot of not being able to be questioned , if you are you claim it is unfair. Now about those dinners and drinks you claim when you tap your sources, claiming them are we? If this is the best you can do really you are in the wrong place.

21/09/2009 3:05:55 p.m.

Jan wrote:

I couldn't agree with you more....and he does not like it at all? All any one wants is fair play...and I do not think he is being fair at all...

Good for you Duncan keep up the good work....

21/09/2009 1:10:28 p.m.

Matt wrote:

On the matter of Bill English, because I have heard and read one too many 'news' reports.

We as a country should have been more concerned if our Finance Minister hadn’t figured out the absolutely best possible deal within the limits of the law. I myself would rather have someone clever charged with steering the financial position of our country. The people who continue to pursue this matter may be patting themselves on the back for gaining some political advantage for their own narrow political goals but, they are missing the point that by trying to destabilise the government they are by default trying destabilise New Zealand. This vexatious political posturing it not good for the people of New Zealand.

The arrangements he had made have passed the legal test so now the only thing left to those who would seek to destabilise his position is to launch personal attacks on his character. Those people should engage in some introspection and question if what they are doing is for the benefit of New Zealand or for the benefit of their political party and polling. Let’s put our country’s stability first.

I repeat, we as a country should have been more concerned if our Finance Minister hadn’t figured out the absolutely best possible deal within the limits of the law.

21/09/2009 10:30:46 a.m.

James wrote:

Completely agree Duncan - what English et al do not understand when they say they have passed the legal test is that this isn't a legal test it is a moral one. Our politicians should be beyond reproach not just about ok.