New Zealand’s parliamentarians have interests in 350 real properties, according to Parliament’s latest Register of Pecuniary Interests. This represents a shade under three properties per MP.
The headline figure is boosted by various MPs’ interests in Maori land blocks. Interest.co.nz counted 66 instances where an interest referred to one. Labour’s Adrian Rurawhe has interests in 41 Maori land holdings and his party colleagues another 11, for example.
The register covered 118 MPs’ interests as at 31 January 2017. Labour list MP Raymond Huo was not included as the Mount Albert by-election that he came in on the back of, was held in February.
By party, National’s 58 MPs recorded interests in 201 real properties. Labour’s 30 MPs 101, the Greens’ 14 MPs 20 properties, NZF’s 12 MPs 25 properties, the Maori Party’s two MPs one property (Flavell), two for Peter Dunne (UF) and none for ACT’s David Seymour.
A staggering 76 MPs declared an interest in two or more properties. Meanwhile, 51 declared an interest in three or more.
By party leader, Bill English (who lives in Wellington) recorded interests in two properties, a Dipton family home and farm; Andrew Little declared a family home in Wellington; Metiria Turei two properties in Dunedin – a family home and a castle; Winston Peters three properties - a St Mary’s Bay house and a house and land in Northland.
The 10 MPs who declared zero interest in real property were: Paul Foster-Bell (National, List), Hon Louise Upston (National, Taupō), Kris Faafoi (Labour, Mana), Peeni Henare (Labour, Tāmaki Makaurau), Marama Davidson (Green, List), James Shaw (Green, List), Darroch Ball (NZ First, List), Ria Bond (NZ First, List), Marama Fox (Māori Party, List), and David Seymour (ACT NZ, Epsom).
Many MPs, from across the spectrum declared interests in rental or investment properties, with some of these via superannuation schemes. Leaving aside Maori land interests, notable entries largely come from National Party MPs. They include:
Hon Nathan Guy (National, Ōtaki) – interests in 18 properties
Farmland, dwellings (x4) and buildings (owned by trusts), north of Levin
Family home (owned by trust), north of Levin
Rental property (owned by trust), Waikanae Beach
Rental property (owned by trust), Waitarere Beach
House (owned by trust), Thorndon, Wellington
Interests in commercial properties (x13) through Roof Above Head Superannuation Scheme’s investment in Te Waiiti Limited (Whangarei and Hastings), Volger Limited (Tauranga, Ngaruawahia, and Auckland), Tahi Investments Limited (Auckland, Hamilton, and Porirua), 265 James Ltd (Auckland, Hamilton, and Te Awamutu), and Snell LP (Morrinsville and Auckland)
Hon Amy Adams (National, Selwyn) – interests in eight properties
Farm property (owned by trust), Aylesbury
Bare land (owned by trust), Darfield
Bare land (owned by trust), Te Kauwhata
Commercial property (owned by trust), Templeton
Commercial property (owned by trust), Temuka
Residential property (owned by trust), Cromwell
Residential property (owned by trust), West Melton
Residential apartment (owned by trust), Wellington
Hon Anne Tolley (National, East Coast) – eight properties
Family home (jointly owned), Ōhope
Rental property (jointly owned), Gisborne
Shops (x4, jointly owned), Napier
Apartment (owned by superannuation scheme), Wellington
House (owned by Ronnix Trust), Napier
Dr Parmjeet Parmar (National, List) – seven properties
Residential rental property (jointly owned), Remuera, Auckland
Residential rental property (jointly owned), Half Moon Bay, Auckland
Commercial property (jointly owned), Mount Wellington, Auckland
Family home (owned by trust), Eastern Beach, Auckland
Residential rental property (owned by Ninian Holdings Limited), Manurewa, Auckland
Residential rental property (owned by Nanak Deep Investment Limited), Bucklands Beach, Auckland
Commercial and residential property (owned by R P & M Parmar Partnership), Flat Bush, Auckland
Sue Moroney (Labour, List) – four properties
Family home (jointly owned), Waikato
Rental property (jointly owned), Waikato
Apartment (jointly owned), Wellington
Holiday home (jointly owned), Coromandel
82 Comments
I agree BigDaddy. Most people who run for parliament are already financially secure. As for even suggesting the inclusion of Maori land. The owners of Maori land can't usually use it, or sell it, or secure a loan using it as security. Most maori land is DOC land by default as the multiple ownership is unworkable. Even if all the hundreds of owners agree to sell, the Maori land court wont let them because the land came from their ancestors and belongs to their great grand children yet to be born.
no we should have self made business people with some doctors and teachers and other professions for balance.
at the moment we are led by lawyers farmers and property investors. have a look at the top table, a lot of lawyers and would you ever let a lawyer look after your finances
I don't bash property investors because like it or not, our young kids need to rent and live independantly from their parents before they buy their own home. I value landlords for the service they provide, especially when they are taking on all the risk when property values start crashing. I never want to see my children buying at peak prices, only to see their property values plummet due to the banks initiating a credit crunch cycle.
Maybe stick to Maori affairs ?
Banks don't " initiate a credit crunch cycle " as you put it
The banks would simply love to keep the ponzi going
Outside forces dictate otherwise like reduced sales to foreign speculators in the housing market for one
Initiating a change in sentiment throughout the market
Banks merely follow trends they are always late
Australian MP's appear to be property-hungry too - and some have voiced concerns about current levels of housing affordability. As recently reported in "The Shovel"........
Finance Minister Mathias Cormann says the Australian MP’s dream of having a double-digit property portfolio is becoming out of reach, with some younger politicians owning as few as two investment homes.
Mr Cormann – who owns just five properties – told a parliamentary enquiry that more had to be done to give struggling politicians a leg-up. “What we’re seeing is the creation of the haves and the have-nots,” Mr Cormann said. “You’ve got someone like Barry O’Sullivan who owns 33 properties, but then others who realistically have no way to break into the 10-house club”.
He said he was hearing more and more from his colleagues about life on struggle street. “I was speaking to George Brandis the other day – he owns just three houses with no real prospects of expanding on that in the immediate term. So we really need to look at policies we can implement to help people like George”.
He said the $273 a night entitlement – which had partly enabled as many as 65 politicians to buy property in Canberra – may need to be increased if the Government was serious about fixing the housing affordability crisis. “This first Canberra home grant has been a big help, but does it go far enough?” he asked.
norway, has about the same population as us
the difference is they invested for the future not sold everything they could
https://www.ofwealth.com/the-richest-country-in-the-world-is-on-sale/
While I applaud what Norway has done they did have an advantage:
Norway has enjoyed, and continues to enjoy, a natural resource bonanza from North Sea oil and gas. The first oil was struck in 1969 and production is expected to last another 60 years.
New Zealand could have followed this model if they kept their population at around 2m.
Norway has begun dipping into the rainy day funds courtesy of low Oil prices ... and of course it has one of the largest holdings in mining co Glencore ... which appears to be doing quite nicely courtesy stripping other countries resources...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNYemuiAOfU
the worst part is we the tax payer are paying some of them off through the MP out of town housing allowances.
funny how so many own apartments, houses in wellington as part of a personal super fund
Wellington accommodation payment: general
(1) Clauses 30 and 31 apply in respect of a member of Parliament’s
Wellington accommodation expenses if—
(a) the member’s home base is outside the Wellington commuting
area; and
(b) the member is not provided with a residence at the public
cost.
(2) The maximum amount that may be paid to a member under
clauses 30 and 31 is $28,000 per year
While others - see where they list the property as being owned by a superannuation scheme - are using a loophole to get taxpayers to pay the mortgage on a house of their own that they are "renting":
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11154765
the other loophole is junior (first time) MPs rent the cabinet ministers house or apartment whilst they stay in a ministerial property.
that way they still get to use tax payers funds to pay off the property.
so many using tax advantages and tax payer funds to enrich themselves, why would they want to change the rules.
second would it not be better to build an apartment block next to parliament to house the MPS, you could house first time MPs n the ground floor and as you become more senior you work your way up to the PM's rooftop penthouse.
would be a lot cheaper to run than the present setups
Remember PM Bill English was caught collecting $$ entitlement for accommodation he later was found he should not have been
So much for working for NZers !
National is filled with opportunists like Bill English who take every handout they can get
Worse he would consider himself a good catholic !
These people like the ponytail puller are in it for themselves They crave power
Would you rather have your politicians being on the bones of their butts, with no assets?
That would be a great idea having our politicians running the country and not having a clue on how to invest!
As Big Daddy says on average you couldn't say that they were large property owners!
For all we know a lot of the property could have been inherited and even if it wasn't, why should we care?
No point being jealous of others as it only makes you nasty and at the end of the day, it is up to everyone to get off their butts to improve our lot.
At what point do you take your own advice? I.e get off your butt and do something useful other than buying up limited housing supply using the banks money (or even worse risk that of a depositor) then proceeding to take money from the needy in the form of rent? Now that's nasty.
That can't be true - our politicians tell us it's a supply issue.
And if our housing market functions as a free market, our prices wouldn't be elevated at 10 times income.
So it's not a supply issue, it must be a price issue. Meaning there's irrationality in the market, meaning we're in for one hell of a correction.
Wildcard, The average pay rate is no higher in Auckland than anywhere else in Nz.
Plenty of property to buy in Auckland if you want to we keep getting told TradeMe Property no.s.
Get out of your comfort zone and do something.
The opportunities exist for most people if they are oreoRed to take them.
I wouldnt care if they made millions through their own hard graft and risk and were true entreprenuers who built companies like Xero, some Bio Tech company or a business that was useful and truely enterprising which helped NZers out. But they have taken the easy route and have a vested interest in property, and keeping the property market inflated at record prices. So now property prices are beyond FHB and NZers who are on low wages, the Government has no incentive to decrease prices and help these people out.
You've got to question why they are keeping immigration levels high and allowing foreign investment to inflate our property prices. Its not a good look.
Swapcrate, professional landlords, that is full time that provide housing to people that don't want to own, are running a business.
They are entrepreneurs and employ people and they pay tax just like any other business except there is less chance that it will go broke providing they know what they are doing!
Does anyone have a link to business lending rates?
And am I right in saying that landlords who operate a 'business' get their lending at the residential rate? While those running actual business that employ people and grow the economy pay a higher rate? If this is true - the policy is outrageous and needs to be changed.
I found that Interest has a page on business loan rates :)
I'm not sure how up to date the page is, but the interest rates there vary from 4.5% (ish) to 15%. So I guess if you buy a house and rent it out as your 'business,' you'll pay a lower interest rate than if you borrowed from the bank to expand/start your actual business. You have to take into account that residential 'business' loans are secured against the house/another house's equity though, allowing a lower interest rate via lower risk.
Why do you continually insist that everyone with a different opinion to yours is lazy/jealous/nasty etc?
I for one would rather we not have politicians who control the leavers of power on their own vested interests. I realise that is never likely to happen but for anyone to claim that politicians own financial considerations don't have an impact on their political decisions is deluding themselves.
Regardless of the scope of their portfolios, the issue is the fact that we can see tangible evidence for the potential of rent seeking behavior.
It's hard to believe that even the most altruistic of politicians would opt for personal financial loss to increase economic welfare.
Sortition might be the answer, again..
why do you think they set the bright line test at two years when a MP term is three years, gives ample time to buy and sell in wellington whilst not having to pay.
they now are looking after themselves first and foremost before the nation, do we really want politicians that will take every and all opportunities to enrich themselves off the NZ taxpayer,
what happened to going in to make a difference and service to your country
Maybe the problem is the people who post on here and other places Sharetrader, those who's opinions are confusing at best...........I would expect all politicians to uphold the constitutional rights of the people.....this means ensuring the parliament does not pass BS legislation that contravens those RIGHTS......so LGA, Buliding Act, RMA etc should all be gone........BUT we have taxpayers many on here whinging that they want politicians to serve their personal needs as apparently that is service to one's country, which is an oxymoron!
Look after the constitutional rights of the people, I wish I had your faith in human beings. Human beings with all the frailities that come with greed and fear.
Especially human beings where most have not had real jobs, and live in a bubble, and see NZers as druggies and hopeless. They also see us as a way to hold power so will say whatever it takes to govern, and then do the opposite once they get in.
Not Sure if it has been mentioned in the comments, but I did hear (on a popular Talk radio station) that one MP with 2 or 3 properties still has a Student Loan!! Not impressed! Surely your constituents would not be impressed, I am not.. pay it off.. your Country needs the money...
This is not a surprising fact, everywhere around the world most rich people own properties, most politicians own properties. Some people do not own many properties but own company shares, so property ownership is sort of investment or some sort of saving such as Kiwisaver. What do you do with your surplus/saving money?
If we look at National and Labour MPs' property ownership numbers, each of them on average own 3.5 properties. So either National or Labour takes power in next election, do not expect much changes in housing tax policy as well as other economic policies. Anyone in power needs to maintain financial stability and economic growth.
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.