Christopher Luxon, New Zealand Prime Minister 2023

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Christopher Luxon, New Zealand Prime Minister 2023

1 | ... | 254 | 255 | 256 | 257 | 258 | 259 | 260 | 261 | 262 | 263 | 264

12086 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9914

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3494833 22-May-2026 21:18

GV27:

Handle9:

It’s also worth pointing out that owning a second property isn’t free. There is a real cost to the MPs who own the property they occupy in Wellington.

Yea but not many people have access to this kind of allowance that makes the second property thing a lot easier for MPs than other citizens:

When your employer deploys you away from home it's entirely normal to have those costs covered, which is what this is. It's certainly far better value for the tax payer than paying for hotels and meals, which is the alternative.

My employer pays me a housing allowance and I used that to pay the mortgage on my house I owned in Dubai. It's more common than you think.

gzt

19016 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8110

Lifetime subscriber

#3494840 23-May-2026 00:20

"Healthworkers want politicians to waive private healthcare while in office". July 2025:

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/567839/healthworkers-want-politicians-to-waive-private-healthcare-while-in-office

I tend to agree with that sentiment.

My feeling is the system works really well 85-90 something percent of the time. In some places it seems very uneven particularly in some non-central locations and the regions. I'd go so far as assigning an MP to a region at random and spending the extra to fly them there.for consultation and treatment. Sub in someone from the list if they're going to be off for a while. You get the idea. Obviously that's all kind of impractical.

It's a serious situation imo. The apologies and learnings are all good and necessary but to me it looks like there are too many cracks for too many people to fall into.

Handle9

12086 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9914

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3494843 23-May-2026 06:14

gzt: "Healthworkers want politicians to waive private healthcare while in office". July 2025:

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/567839/healthworkers-want-politicians-to-waive-private-healthcare-while-in-office

I tend to agree with that sentiment.

My feeling is the system works really well 85-90 something percent of the time. In some places it seems very uneven particularly in some non-central locations and the regions. I'd go so far as assigning an MP to a region at random and spending the extra to fly them there.for consultation and treatment. Sub in someone from the list if they're going to be off for a while. You get the idea. Obviously that's all kind of impractical.

It's a serious situation imo. The apologies and learnings are all good and necessary but to me it looks like there are too many cracks for too many people to fall into.

Where do you stop with this sort of performative nonsense? Does Mark Mitchell have to drive a Skoda and can Simeon Brown only buy from state owned enterprises? What actual difference does anyone think it will make?

How about we start from the premise that these are really f@rking difficult jobs with no good answers? It's hard enough to get capable people interested in politics. How about we pay politicians a fair package relative to their responsibilities and bin them if they don't deliver?

sir1963

3436 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3789

Subscriber

#3494868 23-May-2026 12:49

Handle9:

When your employer deploys you away from home it's entirely normal to have those costs covered, which is what this is. It's certainly far better value for the tax payer than paying for hotels and meals, which is the alternative.

My employer pays me a housing allowance and I used that to pay the mortgage on my house I owned in Dubai. It's more common than you think.

For list MPs, their job is in Wellington.

They volunteered for this job knowing where it is.

It would be cheaper for the tax payers to have 1 BR flats close to the Beehive, if they need Dining space etc there are facilities in the beehive. They could even have additional flats for senior staff who work elsewhere to be housed when they need to be in wellington.

Problem solved.

sir1963

3436 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3789

Subscriber

#3494869 23-May-2026 13:02

gzt: "Healthworkers want politicians to waive private healthcare while in office". July 2025:

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/567839/healthworkers-want-politicians-to-waive-private-healthcare-while-in-office

I tend to agree with that sentiment.

My feeling is the system works really well 85-90 something percent of the time. In some places it seems very uneven particularly in some non-central locations and the regions. I'd go so far as assigning an MP to a region at random and spending the extra to fly them there.for consultation and treatment. Sub in someone from the list if they're going to be off for a while. You get the idea. Obviously that's all kind of impractical.

It's a serious situation imo. The apologies and learnings are all good and necessary but to me it looks like there are too many cracks for too many people to fall into.

We had to degrade retirement assets so that my Wife could get a knee replacement, $30K gone bye bye

I have had a migraine for 16+ years, I have spent a lot of money in all sorts of places because the hospital will not see me

I am about to spend thousands more on my hip, the only thing I got for free was an x-ray which eliminated arthritis , so not hip replacement needed. Paid for an Ultra sound to eliminate another possibility and now about two pay for a specialist so I can get an MRI done, that will be another 4k plus gone. Hospital has zero interest in me.

Work is pushing to retire me early because of the sick leave I take, if that happens there is no benefit for me, I am not 65 and the wife works.

So the healthcare system which is failing is going to push me into a welfare system that will fail me.

So yeah, they earn enough money as is to take out their own private healthcare if they want it, and if they chose not to they can go on the same waiting list (ROTFLMAO...if you can even get on one) as the rest of us.

Their salary should be based on the average INCOME, not wage, so as they make things worse on beneficiaries it also impacts their wages, income from the top 1-2% must be ignored, they are already paying themselves obscene salaries and skew things.

We can then save some money by not having a higher Salaries commission.

Oh and ONE media consultant for each party, they want more, they pay not us. Same with consultants, they can use existing facilities already in place in government departments. Can't see why I need to be paid to be lied to.

gzt

19016 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8110

Lifetime subscriber

#3494872 23-May-2026 13:25

Handle9: How about we start from the premise that these are really f@rking difficult jobs with no good answers? It's hard enough to get capable people interested in politics. How about we pay politicians a fair package relative to their responsibilities and bin them if they don't deliver?

That is in fact the exact same situation for many people in ordinary daily life.

sir1963: Work is pushing to retire me early because of the sick leave I take, if that happens there is no benefit for me, I am not 65 and the wife works. So the healthcare system which is failing is going to push me into a welfare system that will fail me.

That is the kind of stuff that really bugs me. Denial of investigation and treatment saves a few dollars on public health and meets some bureaucratic criteria then instead pays out several times that to keep the same person on welfare benefits instead albeit over a longer period of time when that is not what they really wanted. Likewise ACC is sometimes used to keep people going on the daily while on a waiting list instead of funding immediately the thing or the surgery they actually need. All different accounts obviously and everyone meets their targets so yay.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

gzt

19016 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8110

Lifetime subscriber

#3494873 23-May-2026 13:32

Handle9: Where do you stop with this sort of performative nonsense? Does Mark Mitchell have to drive a Skoda and can Simeon Brown only buy from state owned enterprises? What actual difference does anyone think it will make?

As I stated, my random suggestions there were all kinds of impractical. Suggesting they are performative nonsense might be taking that assesment one step further.

Handle9

12086 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9914

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3494877 23-May-2026 13:51

gzt:
Handle9: Where do you stop with this sort of performative nonsense? Does Mark Mitchell have to drive a Skoda and can Simeon Brown only buy from state owned enterprises? What actual difference does anyone think it will make?

As I stated, my random suggestions there were all kinds of impractical. Suggesting they are performative nonsense might be taking that assesment one step further.

Ok if it's anything other than performative what difference to healthcare would the proposal make?

gzt

19016 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8110

Lifetime subscriber

#3494878 23-May-2026 14:08

The impractical proposal is approximately that MPs and their families experience the same level of healthcare as their average constituents. The obvious intent is that after a period of time MPs will begin to understand the gaps in the system and improve the system for everyone's benefit.

Handle9

12086 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9914

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3494879 23-May-2026 14:12

sir1963:

Handle9:

When your employer deploys you away from home it's entirely normal to have those costs covered, which is what this is. It's certainly far better value for the tax payer than paying for hotels and meals, which is the alternative.

My employer pays me a housing allowance and I used that to pay the mortgage on my house I owned in Dubai. It's more common than you think.

For list MPs, their job is in Wellington.

They volunteered for this job knowing where it is.

It would be cheaper for the tax payers to have 1 BR flats close to the Beehive, if they need Dining space etc there are facilities in the beehive. They could even have additional flats for senior staff who work elsewhere to be housed when they need to be in wellington.

Problem solved.

Ok so there will no longer be any representation on the party list from anyone who comes from outside of Wellington. Job done. There's no need for any represenattion from anyone from outside of Wellington.

You think it would be cheaper for tax payers to have 1 bedroom flats but it really wouldn't be. A typical 1 bedroom flat costs $500k. The WACC is around 5% so that costs the government $25,000 a year. Rates, insurance and maintaince would be another $8,000. Power, water and internet another $3000 a year. Depreciation of furniture and chattels cost a couple thousand dollars a year.

The accomodation allowance for a normal MP is $36,400 and $52,000 for a minister. That seems entirely reasonable when you actually look at the numbers.

Handle9

12086 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9914

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3494880 23-May-2026 14:15

gzt: The impractical proposal is approximately that MPs and their families experience the same level of healthcare as their average constituents. The obvious intent is that after a period of time MPs will begin to understand the gaps in the system and improve the system for everyone's benefit.

Do you think that MPs aren't trying to improve the system now?

How does banning MPs from accessing private healthcare actually get more money for the government to improve the system?

Doesn't this just incentivise the government to borrow massive amounts of money to fund public health at the long term cost to the economy? Is that actually a good thing for the country?

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

gzt

19016 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8110

Lifetime subscriber

#3494882 23-May-2026 14:31

Regarding the healthcare workers' 2025 letter suggesting that members of parliament should forgo private family and individual health insurance while in office. I sympathise with the sentiment. An interim step might be a requirement for MPs to declare if they have that insurance and/or what private services they purchased. There are all kinds of problems with that including privacy but the intent is something like treating the topic like the pecuniary interests register, which most people agree is an essential element for the maintenance of a genuine democracy. I agree it may be somewhat impractical but not performative nonsense.

Handle9

12086 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9914

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3494884 23-May-2026 14:37

gzt: Regarding the healthcare workers' 2025 letter suggesting that members of parliament should forgo private family and individual health insurance while in office. I sympathise with the sentiment. An interim step might be a requirement for MPs to declare if they have that insurance and/or what private services they purchased. There are all kinds of problems with that including privacy but the intent is something like treating the topic like the pecuniary interests register, which most people agree is an essential element for the maintenance of a genuine democracy. I agree it may be somewhat impractical but not performative nonsense.

You haven't answered the question about what would the actual benefit be? These sort of ideas that seek to punish politicians reply on the premise that they aren't trying to make things better now and somehow it would improve things. It's entirely performative and has no real benefit, it just makes people feel like they are sticking it to MPs.

Health insurance/private healthcare isn't a benefit provided, it's a direct cost to an MP. Are we also going to demand to know whether MPs buy vegemite or marmite?

gzt

19016 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8110

Lifetime subscriber

#3494885 23-May-2026 14:45

Handle9:
gzt: The impractical proposal is approximately that MPs and their families experience the same level of healthcare as their average constituents. The obvious intent is that after a period of time MPs will begin to understand the gaps in the system and improve the system for everyone's benefit.

Do you think that MPs aren't trying to improve the system now? How does banning MPs from accessing private healthcare actually get more money for the government to improve the system? Doesn't this just incentivise the government to borrow massive amounts of money to fund public health at the long term cost to the economy? Is that actually a good thing for the country?

Like yourself I genuinely believe that MPs are trying to improve things in that area. I personally benefited in Auckland last year from the government move to reduce waiting lists for colonoscopy. The procedure occurred pretty darn quick after the referral.

Funding public health is a long term benefit for the economy. Like I said earlier the cases that particularly grind my gears occur where almost anyone can calculate a net benefit from funding a public medical procedure instead of decreasing quality of life and providing benefits or acc while on waiting lists, or in the worst imaginable case the cost of palliative end of life care.

Handle9

12086 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9914

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3494886 23-May-2026 14:50

gzt:
Handle9:
Do you think that MPs aren't trying to improve the system now? How does banning MPs from accessing private healthcare actually get more money for the government to improve the system? Doesn't this just incentivise the government to borrow massive amounts of money to fund public health at the long term cost to the economy? Is that actually a good thing for the country?

Like yourself I genuinely believe that MPs are trying to improve things in that area. I personally benefited in Auckland last year from the government move to reduce waiting lists for colonoscopy. The procedure occurred pretty darn quick after the referral.

Funding public health is a long term benefit for the economy. Like I said earlier the cases that particularly grind my gears occur where almost anyone can calculate a net benefit from funding a public medical procedure instead of decreasing quality of life and providing benefits or acc while on waiting lists, or in the worst imaginable case the cost of palliative end of life care.

In isolation more funding for healthcare is a net benefit. The question is where do you take that money from? Is it a greater net benefit than reducing taxes which stimulates the economy, funding for education, providing NZ superannuation or spending on defense in an unstable world? There is no clear answer to any of these questions.

There is a limited pot of resources and no one is ever going to be happy with what gets allocated.

1 | ... | 254 | 255 | 256 | 257 | 258 | 259 | 260 | 261 | 262 | 263 | 264