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 | ... | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | ... | 236

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#3202186 1-Mar-2024 18:39

Handle9:

Is your position that Luxon is claiming for an entitlement that he is not allowed to claim for or that you don’t like that he’s claiming it? Luxon doesn’t set the accomodation policy or the amounts that can be reimbursed. That is done independently of the executive.

There is no dispute that Premier House has long standing maintainence issues. Whether or not that means that it can’t be inhabited is politically in dispute, I would expect the report to be OIA-ed and released in short order.

Because accommodation is supplied, he should NOT be entitled to claim it.

The fact that successive governments have failed to adequately maintain the property is irrelevant, just ask anyone in Kainga Ora accommodation, people who use our roads, etc etc etc. We are just expected to "deal with it". If it can not be inhabited (ie meet healthy homes standards) then the group that manages those assets should be fined under the tenancy act.

I would have a punt that long term having "parliamentary housing" for all of our MPs would actually save significant money, and stop politicians rotting the system to further line their own pockets.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3202187 1-Mar-2024 18:44

sir1963:
Handle9:

Is your position that Luxon is claiming for an entitlement that he is not allowed to claim for or that you don’t like that he’s claiming it? Luxon doesn’t set the accomodation policy or the amounts that can be reimbursed. That is done independently of the executive.

There is no dispute that Premier House has long standing maintainence issues. Whether or not that means that it can’t be inhabited is politically in dispute, I would expect the report to be OIA-ed and released in short order.

Because accommodation is supplied, he should NOT be entitled to claim it.

The fact that successive governments have failed to adequately maintain the property is irrelevant, just ask anyone in Kainga Ora accommodation, people who use our roads, etc etc etc. We are just expected to "deal with it". If it can not be inhabited (ie meet healthy homes standards) then the group that manages those assets should be fined under the tenancy act.

I would have a punt that long term having "parliamentary housing" for all of our MPs would actually save significant money, and stop politicians rotting the system to further line their own pockets.

Lack of maintainence is entirely relevant and quite ingenuous to suggest it is not. If the property requires extensive maintainence and can’t be inhabited should the PM be expected to work from home in Auckland as he has nowhere to live in Wellington?

IMO your argument is not logical at all.

SaltyNZ

8874 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9566

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3202189 1-Mar-2024 19:00

But it isn't "uninhabitable". As of 2020, it was up to scratch as far as healthy homes go, but was described as "dated and basic". Pictures of the dated and basic interior here. Note that the 2020 article is after the $3M mentioned in the 2017 article had been spent. The decor isn't really my cup of tea either but I'd still feel pretty guilty charging the public $1K a week to live in my own house.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#3202190 1-Mar-2024 19:03

Handle9:

Lack of maintainence is entirely relevant and quite ingenuous to suggest it is not. If the property requires extensive maintainence and can’t be inhabited should the PM be expected to work from home in Auckland as he has nowhere to live in Wellington?

IMO your argument is not logical at all.

No, he should be put up in accommodation that he does not own while the property is being repaired ASAP.

However he has an apartment in Wellington which was obviously empty and able to be used at no ones expense. Give him money for power/internet/water.

It is of interest to know that people who "worked from home" during covid did not even get power paid for them....

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3202192 1-Mar-2024 19:12

SaltyNZ:

Qazzy03:

rb99:

The rich take what they're entitled to, thats fine, the poor do the same, they're lazy freeloaders.

All too often people use phrases like: dole bludgers, lazy & useless beneficiaries, heck even Paula Bennett got the nickname "Paula Benefit" as a Nat MP because she was a solo parent on the benefit at one point.

However it's a beat-up when it is poor Luxon?

She didn't get the nickname because she was on the benefit in the past, she got the nickname because she was on the benefit in the past, used it to help herself get back on her feet, and then spent her career in politics taking those same benefits away from as many other people as possible.

Was it a nickname? I know Simon Bridges fronted up to the media and said Paula Benefit. Laughed it off, but.....(the brain fills in the gaps)

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3202193 1-Mar-2024 19:12

sir1963:

Handle9:

Lack of maintainence is entirely relevant and quite ingenuous to suggest it is not. If the property requires extensive maintainence and can’t be inhabited should the PM be expected to work from home in Auckland as he has nowhere to live in Wellington?

IMO your argument is not logical at all.

No, he should be put up in accommodation that he does not own while the property is being repaired ASAP.

However he has an apartment in Wellington which was obviously empty and able to be used at no ones expense. Give him money for power/internet/water.

It is of interest to know that people who "worked from home" during covid did not even get power paid for them....

So because he has a property of his own his remuneration should be reduced? That is far from consistent with the behaviour of a good employer and wouldn't be in any way acceptable in private or public employment.

Whether or not people working from home got paid for power is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

Dell

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

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3202194 1-Mar-2024 19:14

SaltyNZ:

I'd say it's a pretty even split. Nobody on here is being especially coy about their political leanings. Personally I think it's great to debate people I don't agree with.

It is. Its democracy at a lower, public level. When some defend the realm, thats also fine, but at some point you need to decide am I honest to myself or just defending the realm no matter what

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3202195 1-Mar-2024 19:18

rb99:

I see he's giving it back - 'its become a distraction'. Wasn't the wrong thing to do of course (what, make a mistake...me), its just a distraction from our mission of firing some people so those of us left in jobs can pay a bit less in tax.

"its become yet another dumb and silly move" Get a new PR manager.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3202196 1-Mar-2024 19:20

SaltyNZ:

But it isn't "uninhabitable". As of 2020, it was up to scratch as far as healthy homes go, but was described as "dated and basic". Pictures of the dated and basic interior here. Note that the 2020 article is after the $3M mentioned in the 2017 article had been spent. The decor isn't really my cup of tea either but I'd still feel pretty guilty charging the public $1K a week to live in my own house.

You don't know what the maintainence issues are, you are guessing that is still inhabitable. The article linked detailed the $3 million as largely being for security upgrades.

Given the report mentioned in the article detailed structural and roof repairs it is in all likelihood a pretty significant amount of work. Just like other government assets kicking the can down the road can only last so long.

As I mentioned above I expect an OIA on the maintainence issues has already been filed so they will be in the public domain rather quickly.

It's also worth reading Hipkins comment from 2018, quoted in the article:

Hipkins said Premier House was a heritage building that the Government had a responsibility to preserve, look after and maintain it.

"It's in a pretty run-down state and I think at some point we're going to have to look at some reasonably significant maintenance at Premier House."

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3202197 1-Mar-2024 19:21

Handle9:

Lack of maintainence is entirely relevant and quite ingenuous to suggest it is not. If the property requires extensive maintainence and can’t be inhabited should the PM be expected to work from home in Auckland as he has nowhere to live in Wellington?

IMO your argument is not logical at all.

Not relevent at all.

He decided to use his own existing property, so the taxpayer can pay for that. Which will be any costs that are solely due to his occupancy as an MP. Power is all I can think of

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3202198 1-Mar-2024 19:21

Correction: $1 million was security upgrades. The balance was normal operating expenditure.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

rb99

3508 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1830

Lifetime subscriber

#3202199 1-Mar-2024 19:22

I don't think his enumeration should be reduced. I don't think accommodation and expenses should be paid for as an extra when he doesn't have them. I imagine its designed (mainly) for those who suddenly have to rent.

I believe that basic concept is called leading by example.

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” -John Kenneth Galbraith

rb99

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3202200 1-Mar-2024 19:22

tdgeek:

Handle9:

Lack of maintainence is entirely relevant and quite ingenuous to suggest it is not. If the property requires extensive maintainence and can’t be inhabited should the PM be expected to work from home in Auckland as he has nowhere to live in Wellington?

IMO your argument is not logical at all.

Not relevent at all.

He decided to use his own existing property, so the taxpayer can pay for that. Which will be any costs that are solely due to his occupancy as an MP. Power is all I can think of

So your position is that MPs should be paid different salaries and allowances based on their personal circumstances, not based on their job?

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3202201 1-Mar-2024 19:24

rb99:

I don't think his enumeration should be reduced. I don't think accommodation and expenses should be paid for as an extra when he doesn't have them. I imagine its designed (mainly) for those who suddenly have to rent.

So you'd be ok paying the allowance if he rented out his apartment and rented a different apartment instead?

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#3202202 1-Mar-2024 19:24

Handle9:

So because he has a property of his own his remuneration should be reduced? That is far from consistent with the behaviour of a good employer and wouldn't be in any way acceptable in private or public employment.

Whether or not people working from home got paid for power is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

His remuneration is NOT being reduced.

And if anyone in another government department or in private industry did that, they would be FIRED and likely be done for fraud.

If I choose not to use any of the supplied items from my employer (phone, computer, transport, etc), I do not get to claim expenses for using my own from my employer

He had perfectly adequate accommodation supplied (palatial by the looks of it, which the tax payers STILL have to maintain), if he choses to use his own, his problem, he does not get paid bonus money to do so.

And I do not care who or which party they belong to does this.

1 | ... | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | ... | 236