Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says he will not take the $52,000 accommodation supplement after all, as it had become a “distraction”.
On Friday morning, Newsroom reported that he would take the optional payment, on top of his $471,000 base salary, despite owning a near $1 million apartment mortgage free.
That would have made Luxon the first Prime Minister to collect the payment in over three decades, as previous leaders either lived at Premier House or were already based in Wellington.
Since he does not have any direct housing costs to subsidise, the extra $52,000 would have effectively been added to his personal income.
The Prime Minister called into Newstalk ZB at 5pm to reverse his decision, just hours after defending it during a press conference in Queenstown.
One reporter had asked Luxon what he would use the money for since he was not paying any rent. Luxon did not answer directly.
“It's just an entitlement, there will be many MPs and Ministers in the same situation, I suspect, but the bottom line is that's the situation I am in,” he said.
The coalition Government has been touting its plans to rout out wasteful spending and asking public sector agencies to find cost savings anywhere it can.
Luxon did not agree that it was hypocritical to take the accommodation supplement, that he did not need for housing costs, while seeking to cut spending elsewhere.
In the Queenstown press conference, he said his Government was focused on making sure New Zealand’s public sector had a “culture of fiscal discipline”.
“To make sure we are actually not wasting money on wasteful projects which we are seeing no return for,” he said.
Luxon said all non-Wellington based members of Parliament had the right to take an accommodation supplement and many did.
Regardless, he was eager to move into the official residence Premier House but not until significant maintenance had been carried out on the historic building.
“As Prime Minister it would be awesome to be in Premier House, it's probably not great that we have a place that has maintenance issues,” he said.
Luxon said there had been a report provided to former Prime Minister Chris Hipkins about maintenance and repair issues, which the new Government was working through.
“I think New Zealanders would like us to keep Premier House, the alternative is that we sell it or do something else with it, I think they want us to keep it”.
“But for that to happen, with a hundred year old house, you need to maintain a regular programme of maintenance and repairs”.
He said the Government would find a way to make that happen at the lowest possible cost.
The $52,000 supplement—which works out at $1000 per week—is 8% more than a minimum wage worker would earn working full time.
The Prime Minister said he will repay the first instalment, of roughly $13,000, which was paid into a bank account only this week and not collect the subsidy going forward.
110 Comments
Try this agnostium.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/350088591/more-20-mps-rent-back-thei…
Now tell me some factual argument why it's different if he rented it or owned it. If you can stoop to that. Seems to make difference to some here, but I don't get it.
He does own it so you're obviously missing the point entirely. It's possible that you can't "get it".
It's simply snouts at the trough - gluttony when you're already fed ample - and hypocrisy when you're demanding the runts are fed less.
When you're demanding austerity of others a true leader leads by example. Otherwise you're merely an authoritarian dictator.
No Meh. I don't think you can explain about the question, so you got onto abuse. Cut it out.
Anyway MPs need to stay in Wellington for a good chunk of the year. That they usually get apartments to do so is quite sensible. They might rent or they might buy and it's reasonable they are reimbursed. What's the high moral condemnation here that the apartments are owned over rented.
high moral condemnation
I think it's because he's been morally lecturing beneficiaries ever since his first post-Cabinet press conference. It's the fact that he's been lecturing us all about getting tough on crime; sending youth to 'boot camps' to put them on the straight and narrow 'moral' path; it's because he's canned getting cultural assessments for the judiciary because he said the 'gravy train' of report writers were morally wrong in financially benefitting from that kind of investigative work on behalf of offenders.... and I could go on.
He's starts out the blocks as a high and mighty moral crusader-type... and then... this.
It exposes him as having a moral fabric of 'entitlement' - his.
No abuse was intended. I'll admit my wording could have been better and less accusatory, and for that I apologise.
I don't believe the moral condemnation here is about owned or rented. It might cost significantly less if they did rent and shared accommodation for the time they're required to be in Wellington. Is the reimbursement reasonable considering most employees (and that's all they are) who choose to work in a different location usually bear the cost themselves?
Being paid to live in your own property when you can afford to pay your own way is just taking the piss. And for those MP's who have a mortgage, well they're actually receiving a greater benefit having it paid by the citizens they're meant to governing for, not over. The whole parliamentary perks system needs a radical overhaul.
If they are unable to manage their affairs with the decent salaries they're being paid, they're definitely not leadership material.
He is an electorate MP in Auckland. No reasonable employer would expect travel and accommodation costs for travel to another city regularly to be covered by the employee. MP’s that don’t live in Wellington all get an allowance for accommodation. How they spend it is up to them.
MP’s salaries are not that decent given what is being asked of them. If they are just employees, then their individual wealth is irrelevant.
Agreed. It's a little different though when he's preaching austerity and the taxpayer should not be treated like an endless ATM, while claiming an allowance that he does not actually need, particularly if he owns freehold property that remains vacant in Wellington.
If he had turfed out $1k per week tenants, then it might be reasonable but even then in the face of his comments around fiscal tightening, it's well out of touch.
Or he could live in Premier House? Oh no he said it was "condemned".
I get that it's within his remuneration entitlements, however the issue is he's expecting everybody else to make significant cuts except for himself. Guaranteed 200% you'd be up in arms if it were identical circumstances but a Labour Government/Prime Minister because you're a National Party shill.
Unpleasant try agnostium. But no prize. Chanting "your wrong" aged out in primary school.
I asked you a simple question right at the top of this thread. About owning or renting. No answer from you.
In the absence of your reply I infer you agree with the statement of my post above.
"........He owns the apartment. It did not come free. He shelled out big bucks to get it. Took his own money out of somewhere else useful. Apparently that's real bad.
He could have rented, paid out big bucks on a weekly basis. Apparently that's OK..."
Given it's paywalled, I wonder if you could give me the names of all 20 of them. I like writing letters and the $2billion+ cost of the accommodation supplement is a bug bear of mine, as folks here will know :-)!
Send the names, I'll write the same 'form' letter to each one and post a copy of the letter once I compose it :-)..
I don't think it is paywalled Kate. I seem to be able to open it alright.
Four ministers (Duncan Webb, Jan Tinetti, Deborah Russell and Willie Jackson) claimed the capped allowance, of up to $45,000 a year, to cover living costs in the city. They then use it to pay rent on property they already own.
Four Government MPs (Arena Williams, Jenny Salesa, Jamie Strange and Sarah Pallet) claim an entitlement of up to $31,000 per year.
Twelve National Party MPs, including leader Christopher Luxon, do the same. They are: Andrew Bayly; Gerry Brownlee; Judith Collins; Jacqui Dean; Barbara Kuriger; Melissa Lee; Ian McKelvie; Mark Mitchell; Simon O’Connor; Stuart Smith; Louise Upston and Michael Woodhouse.
ACT’s Simon Court also claims the allowance and owns property in the Capital, but the party did not respond to a request for comment.
The same names are listed in todays article - https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/benefit-mansion-christopher-luxo…
It also states that newly elected MP's will have their details published at a later date.
there used to be a scheme where new Mps to parliament would rent apartments or houses from minsters who are given free houses so that the senior Mps could still gain the supplement to pay off mortgages etc, it happened for all parties, in fact the greens got caught a few years ago as they did it as a party thing and called out on it and ended up selling the houses.
In 1991 the National government introduced one of the most radical reforms in the history of state housing: the removal of income-related rents and the establishment of a government accommodation supplement.
Add the big sell up of social housing and we wonder why we have the problems we have now. And 30 years later repeating the same ideologue. Just shows how some refuse to learn from the past and are unwilling to learn.
Luxon is nothing more than a bludger wasting our tax. Shameful he should get his snout out of the public purse. Hipkins who is worth nothing in comparison to him has the integrity to pay his own way. Even my friends who vote national can't believe how shamless he is.. The fact the house is mortgage-free makes it even worse. I hope ACT have some integrity and hold him to account.
You certainly can, and apparently it scales upwards based on net worth and income.
For example, 2 adults and 2 children taking home $47k per annum will get $100 per week accommodation supplement. If they wanted a $1000 per week accommodation supplement, they'd need to earn $470k p.a.
He'd have handed the money over to these good Christian folk;
https://wellingtoncitymission.org.nz/
They'll do better things with it than anyone in the National party caucus, for sure.
They idolize a false god;
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/self-interest.asp
First commandment rule breakers.
It's just an entitlement
So what for the benefit “entitlement” he is currently removing? Same thing? But different somehow? Those people under previous law were no less entitled than him and he took that entitlement away while claiming his own. Would need to understand the cost requirements to claim this, but about as close as it gets to benefit fraud.
Absolute entitled POS.
No different to the likes of John Key, Paula Bennett and how many others who like to tell their stories of growing up in social housing, being beneficiaries yet believe it should be taken away from others.
I wonder how they would've really fared were they treated the same as they've treated others now?
If money is the answer and the question is how do we as a country get a great PM, then I doubt we'll ever solve it.
What was that programme years ago where people in the community would nominate somebody to have a secret garden do-over done? Many of those recipients who would literally give the shirt off their back, or do without so that somebody could have were worth 100x more than what we suffer now from MPs and this PM.
I get that running a country has a lot more to it than above and beyond community service.
To me our current PM feels to have the widest gap ever between what they should be there for and what they are actually there for. Which I guess is a reflection on where NZ culture has been heading to over the last few decades.
It's hard to see anything in this county's future to be cheerful about.
Which is why we need to review the role and purpose of government. Who and what do they actually govern?
We're again failing to learn from our history and origin of these constructs.
Was by the people, for the people just a giant virtue signal? It's been further distorted by neoliberal economics, which has become our ultimate governing force.
It's all just a symptom of deeper humanity issues, and I'm not sure we're capable of addressing any of it collectively, especially with our current crop of rulers.
I think we just need to keep pointing out hypocrisy, ideology over evidence-based policy, support a strong and impartial civil service and judiciary, a strong and free media and most of all really challenge leaders who do things for their personal gain over the good of the country.
Only repaying because it's a "distraction". Only worried about possible poll results and image.
Clearly has no integrity or ability to read the room. Key 2.0, who had similar entitlement around remuneration because "the rules". The one person who is in a position to change the rules.
What return are we getting on his salary and perks?
Haha if this is the quality of our leaders we're in for a rough journey. But we get what we deserve I guess...
there is a pattern showing now
first it was ordering a self drive government supplied vehicle and he picked a tesla whilst going on TV and ranting about the government giving discounts to rich people to buy a telsa.
then applying for that same discount for a family car a tesla not once but twice.
and who can remember getting the government limo picking him up to drive him across the road
now this one.
the old saying a leopard can't change its spots and this leopard is self-entitled so will keep up this pattern until the public get sick of it and he loses enough support that he will get rolled.
Luxon did not play that well and should have sold all his extra houses before entering parliament too.
However, we do need to pay MPs, particularly cabinet level ones, well otherwise we get dross. Luxon isn't doing it for the money either, he could be earning much more in the private sector - unlike most of the opposition.
Because the press and the average punter can't or doesn't want to understand why these allowances are necessary, they should just pay all MPs more and make it easy for themselves (if unfairer).
It would appear we've received plenty of dross over the years even though they're paid well. Maybe that whole line of pay peanuts get monkeys is the falsehood. They don't need to be paid more. They need to be more competent and have actual knowledge in the fields they're given responsibility for.
If people are passionate about what they do, believe in what they do, receive true appreciation and fulfillment they'd most likely do it for free and do a better job than someone doing it for the money. It's only our faulty economics and markets, our distorted costs of living, our flawed human conditioning that dictates these limits.
So, much like Key before him, he's in it for the ego and persona, ruled by ideology rather than reality.
Luxon should have simply pointed out that his apartment is rented out and under laws that Labour enacted he can no longer ask the tenants to vacate the property, therefore he is forced to rent somewhere else. That would have immediately justified his receiving the accommodation allowance and point out the stupidity of Labour's tenancy laws preventing an owner from reclaiming their property when they need it.
But he's renting his own property? He should have said there is a problem with the allowance and it needs to be looked into for everyone. It actually makes me so annoyed to see my taxpayer dolllars be used as a personal revenue stream for him. I don't care who made the rules. He doesn't have to put his snout in the trough. I would be equally pissed if Chris Hipkins or Jacinda did it. Show some initiative and responsibility as a leader. Don't hide behind some flimsy rules, stand by your principles.
not every MP is paid some are given houses to use, the prime minister , speaker and ministers are provided with a government house, wellington based Mps must live in their house
Pretty sure the PM can live in Premier House if they also normally live in Wellington. If they don't want to live in it, they could use it for the deputy pm. But I am sure it would also house many people, so you got to wonder why in a housing crisis it isn't used. The condition seems to be a red herring because I am sure it is better than most rentals in NZ. Maybe they need to convert it into multiple apartments, or a retirement home for old MPs
Nothing stopping him from living in Premier House, unless someone can provide an OIO release showing the property is infact condemned.
That's what the taxpayer provides Premier House for isn't it? Tell you what, if you feel so greatly about it how about you personally give Luxon $52k per annum and the taxpayer can thank you for it.
Similar logic could be applied to long-term beneficiaries. They're simply entitled to a benefit, after all. Incredibly inappropriate to put any sanctions around something you're entitled to.
Flippant comments aside, I am absolute stunned that Luxon claimed this allowance. Any idiot would realise how having his snout shamelessly in the trough would come across. His voters don't care about child poverty statistics, but they do take note when the person they voted fr sneaks his hand in their backpocket. He completely mistepped. His rationale for collecting the allowance (I"m entitled so what's the problem) is no different from all the lazy benefciaries he detests.
The logic is applied to beneficiaries and other recipients of the accommodation supplement, which get paid regardless of whether they are renting or they own their house. We dont tell people who own their house that they cant get the accommodation supplement because they own it. Are you suggesting we should?
because she moved into the "as luxon says the condemned not livable Priemer house" with a toddler also she cut all Mps pay rises due to covid instead of taking what she was entitled to because it would have been a bad look.
also JK lived there and I'm sure his apartment was much much nicer.
it doesn't matter what people think of JA CH JK BE this was just a very bad choice by luxon as shows deep down his personal character.
What a joke to imply that JA and her government were somehow fiscally responsible. The magnitude of irresponsible spending under that government is beyond belief and will ripple thought the NZ economy for decades. Public sector salaries in NZ are far to high in general. The PMs salary is just ridiculous. The German chancellor doesn't even get paid that much, and compare the sizes of the respective economies! That's not a National vs Labour thing, it's just a New Zealand thing. I'm sick of the media's left wing slant.
I don't know how he was able to claim it when he I understand he already owns the apartment, and was given free access to live in Premier house. I understand Jacinda lived in it after $3 million dollars in renovations
https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/national/hefty-price-tag-3-million-up…
I understand the last PM who lived in Wellington, lived in his own house rather than Premier house, and I understand he didn't claim these entitlements for living in his own house, which it appears he could have. So I have difficulty in understanding why someone with such high earnings and wealth would be claiming it. Especially when his party was about cutting costs in the public sector, and people are doing it hard with the cost of living crisis. OK, he has now backed down, but IMO the damage is already done. Just because someone could legally claim an entitlement, doesn't mean that it is the right thing to do, and he isn't going to win many friends by doing it.
A true leader leads from the top by their actions.
The fact that the previous govt spent $3M and Premier House is still a mess speaks more to their competence than anything else.
If he resided in Premier house and they carried out extensive renovations the MSM would claim that is a was a waste of taxpayer money.
$52k for an apartment over the road from the beehive is a bargain as far as the taxpayer is concerned.
As for " optics" it seems many have short memories regarding the last govt. Remember when the "climate Princess" flew home alone from Fiji to breast feed her kid?
TV3 want saving but don't see that this sort of gutter politics is why many refuse to watch them.
Die MSM..Die
No - they aren't allowed to be involved nowadays - too many have commandeered parts of the Commons - for private profit. So there would have been architects, draughtspeople, lead tenderers, tradies, subbies, labourers, traffic-management - all clipping the ticket.
But you blame a political Party? Bollocks (disclosure: the last time I voted Labour was 84, the year they abandoned principles in favour of? Those who are comfortable living at the expense of others).
Wow this is poor. What's worse is trying to defend it. Even though he's technically right it's a PR disaster from a party that's about reducing unnecessary costs to taxpayers.
A far cry from previous National Party leaders, where John Key donated his salary to charity and Don Brash was known for doing his own washing on overseas work trips to save costs.
A good question Chris. Well I'm probably part of the unfaithful these days (havent voted blue since Bill) but he was definitely donating part of his salary when he was the leader of the opposition. From memory the salary to charity thing was a campaign pledge - struggling to remember back that far
Because in the grand scheme of things, all these parliamentary perks including life time flights and ongoing sucking of the teat are all a drop in the bucket compared to all other combined Government expenses.
Government spends $150 billion per year or so. Luxon's $52k = 0.003467% of total expenditure. But the thing is, I'm sure there are better places to spend $52k right?
True colours lit up for the entire nation to see.
Yes, but what I can't get my head around is why anyone with more wealth and fame than most of us can imagine, would go and demean himself by taking what is a comparatively paltry handout from the public purse when you consider his overall wealth portfolio..
I do wonder whether the more you accumulate in life - the more entitled you feel to accumulate more from the pockets of others.
Thank goodness I'll never find out :-). Quite proud of my life 'in the middle' from a proud working/caring family history - and I'm acutely conscious in counting my blessings everyday, as I know what a privileged position/place I have (and still am) living in comparison to others.
I actually feel sad for Luxon as he must be miserable in "wanting to accumulate more" everyday - that's no way to live your life..
Good point. I've always thought that if a government is not prepared to means-test the pension (I think it used to be called a surcharge or something like that), then they should implement peer pressure.
All those individuals who choose not to take a pension because they don't need it, get to go on a high-profile public list called: Noble New Zealanders
and like to Lotto grants - all the various charities who the money is then donated to are also listed with thanks to these noble NZers.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.