Row continues over double-dipping ministers

Print

Wed, 05 Aug 2009 12:00a.m.

Bill English

Bill English

Double-dipping by ministers who rent their Wellington apartments to backbench MPs is the latest twist in the expenses saga that is ripping through Parliament.

Also Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Bill English remains in the spotlight after a report today saying his Wellington home was designated an official ministerial residence by Internal Affairs.

The Crown is leasing the house back from the English family trust that owns it.

On the renting issue some MPs are getting market rates on Wellington properties they own while claiming allowances to live in different properties.

So far Housing Minister Phil Heatley and Defence Minister Wayne Mapp have been confirmed as renting their apartments to backbenchers.

Police Minister Judith Collins yesterday told reporters she also rented her Wellington apartment but would not say to whom.

Labour leader Phil Goff also rents out his flat in the capital and lives in a taxpayer-funded home.

Mr Heatley is taking most of the criticism because he is in charge of the country's state houses where poor people live.

His salary is around $250,000 and TV One News calculated his additional "taxpayer subsidy" at about $77,000 a year.

TV3 News reported Mr Heatley owns two houses in Whangarei and rents one of them to the Parliamentary Service as his office, netting another $15,000 a year.

The ministers aren't breaking any rules but Prime Minister John Key has ordered a review.

Speaker Lockwood Smith told The Dominion Post he would introduce checks to ensure out-of-town MPs claiming for Wellington residences owned by family trusts or superannuation schemes were charging market rates.

"Where there's any question of a pecuniary interest, it would seem to me that an independent valuation on the market rental of the place would be reasonable."

Mr English, whose circumstances sparked the media investigations into ministerial housing, is still being questioned by reporters.

Mr English claims about $1000 a week to live in his own home in Wellington. It is owned by a family trust and the title is in the name of his wife, Mary.

The New Zealand Herald reported today the lease back arrangement has enabled Mr English to get more than the $24,000 he would otherwise have been limited to -- likely to be over $47,000 this year. The value of the lease was based on an independent valuation.

The previous practice of Internal Affairs was to limit out-of-town ministers living in their own Wellington properties to the $24,000 maximum of an ordinary MP.

A day after the May 28 Budget, a new rule on ministerial housing was gazetted stipulating that an out-of-town minister who did not take up an official residence was effectively limited to $24,000.

Mr English's spokesman told the newspaper that because the house had already been designated an official residence, the new rule did not apply to him.

The house in Karori was bought by an English family trust in 2007 and the rating valuation is $1.2 million.

Mr English, MP for Clutha Southland, and his wife Mary, a Wellington GP, have lived there for two years with their six children and have lived in Wellington for many years.

The Dominion Post reported that it had been told Mr Key is likely to reduce the accommodation allowances.

Mr Key favoured a series of new tests for ministers' costs, which could be paid as a bulk-funded amount, the paper reported.

Ministers who stayed in their Wellington homes would get the $24,000 limit available to ordinary MPs.

A second tier of about $30,000 would be available to ministers who moved into bigger houses, or took one leased by the taxpayer, but rented any existing Wellington accommodation they owned and so received an offsetting income.

A top rate of $35,000 a year would be available to ministers who took a house through Ministerial Services but had no offsetting income from another property they rented out.

NZPA

 

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

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


(Won't be published)



Comments

09 Aug 2009 07:36p.m.

Glenis wrote:

If the employment contract says pay $xxx in accommodation allowances then that is what they are entitled to. English is 2nd in charge of the country, you would expect him to live in a decent home and he has a big family to house. I don't imagine a million buys anything that substantial in Wellington? There will always be people that have more and earn more than others - get over it. You can't compare the income of the unemployed or low income with our top politicians there is no point. Next election vote in a group of unemployed - give them a job as our leaders, what's the bet they'll want the going rate of pay and all the allowances? This is just another media feeding frenzy. Why don't they pick on execs of big companies who earn far more and affect the amount paid out to shareholders - some of whom are our retired with very limited incomes?

05 Aug 2009 03:10p.m.

David wrote:

The point is that in order to lead by example, a house owned by yourself if you a politician (a family trust I doubt would have much of a mortgage) and you are preaching "hey, everyone.. we need to cut costs and streamline our enterprises to best save money" you should also be going "nah mate, have my own home.. families all good there.. lets save the tax payer $77,000 a year because afterall I have my $250,000 annaul income which is 6 times higher the the average national wage anyway."

Lead by example Mr English, give it all back not just half or a bit.

05 Aug 2009 02:35p.m.

Dan wrote:

But that's the point. They shouldn't be entitled to it at all. If I chose to work in Wellington, I'd be expected to get my own house there. Why should it be any different for MPs? Considering he did get his own house, then expected the taxpayer to fork over it - a week after his govt bullied solo mums for getting some assistance. It's disgusting.

05 Aug 2009 02:31p.m.

Richard wrote:

No Dan, you miss the point. The minister has the right to the money he is getting for the home he is living in, and has a right to more as Labour increased the rates before they got kicked out. The minister renting is property also has the right to do so, again as set forth by labour. But some of you people will moan and complain about anything.

05 Aug 2009 01:43p.m.

cherie wrote:

Why are the oppersition not saying anything I wonder?

05 Aug 2009 01:35p.m.

William wrote:

Notice someone who is very, very quiet on this......where are you Rodney, come out from begind your tree, the minster of lurks...jerks and perks..
Cheers
Wills.

05 Aug 2009 01:06p.m.

Paul wrote:

Lets continue to remember their wages are tax payer funded as well. Most of these "taxpayer subsidies" are around half the average New Zealand wage.

05 Aug 2009 12:34p.m.

Beth wrote:

I sincerely hope, that no politician, has the audacity to turn up for the telethon, for children on Saturday. Holidays, virtually free homes, taxi, food. How much is being handed to these people over and above their salaries. Just disgusted with the whole lot of you and will be showing this at the next election with some pointed questions to the candidates. Which of you has had your snout in the trough.

05 Aug 2009 12:29p.m.

Jim Bailey - JimBWarrior wrote:

New Zealands highest paid Beneficiars continue to be exposed for their scudugery while demanding the lowest put thier meger cents to better use - Onward - Jim

05 Aug 2009 12:24p.m.

Elizabeth wrote:

Oh, let us hope we all remember this at election time.......that goes for all parties. All candidates should be asked what benefits they reaped, if they are already in parliament.