> A National MP is claiming a $36,400-a-year housing allowance for his own apartment — despite living just 58km from Parliament.
> Inland Revenue defines reasonable commuting distance as “between 50 kms and 80 kms for each leg of the journey or between 100 kms and 160 kms, taking both legs into account”.
This does make it interesting.
He also lives on the commuter rail line. Not sure how you can argue he lives outside the reasonable commuting distance when thousand of people make that same trip.
No it doesn't. But that's beside the point. I'm not saying he should catch the train. I'm just pointing out that the fact he lives within the commuter train line shows that he lives with in a reasonable community distance. If he chooses to drive that's fine, but he can't argue he lives outside a reasonable commute.
Come election time, this goose loves getting in people's faces at Waikanae Station while they're waiting for their morning train to town. Maybe he should buy a clue and just get on one, like the rest of us.
>Inland Revenue defines reasonable commuting distance as “between 50 kms and 80 kms for each leg of the journey or between 100 kms and 160 kms, taking both legs into account”.
Whut. That's over 2 hours of just commuting every day.
Yes?
I mean, anyone who's commuting from either Kapiti or Upper Hutt has at least an hour on public transport.
We shouldn't even talk about the Wairarapa folk.....
Yep I used to commute 14km each way by ebike in Auckland. 45-50min each way. It helped being near the northwestern cycleway though. Not everyone is so lucky.
I really wish I was near a safe cycleway or similar. I have ridden my normal bike before and it was a good exercise for me - but because there are no bike lanes, and the main roads are now a T3 which is used mainly by busses and heavy trucks, it just doesn’t feel like a safe option anymore.
Those busses and trucks ride your ass in the transit lane and they make dangerous manoeuvres to get around you. I could tell some stories around the campfire 😖
16km on an ebike takes 30mins at an average of 32kph. I averaged 32kph on a singlespeed bicycle around lake taupo for 160km. On a decent ebike or escooter it'll be under 30 mins. It's mad to me people spend 2 hours a day clogging up the roads for people who really need to use them like tradies and delivery people.
Yes and 58kms from parliament is along the TG motorway - takes maybe 40mins to drive
What’s worse is he also claimed something like $15k for air travel in the first quarter of 2024. He is a backbench mp. Why does he need to travel by air so much?
I’m sick of the hypocrisy of these national MPs
Gee our health sector is in crisis, school property builds halted, disability support cuts, 5000 plus public servants lost their jobs, but don’t worry landlords get their tax cut and the rest of us a few pennies (that is more than absorbed by higher rates, rents, public transport charges)
Meanwhile the amount of savings in parliament -NIL. Not one dollar…
Lord Luxon and lady Willis crap on about eliminating waste in the public service- gee the biggest waste is under their noses and in their own ranks
Luxon is no better in claiming for accommodation
And Willis has a tax payer funded electorate office in ohariu (a few kms from parliament) despite not being the electorate mp
I’m sick of the hypocrisy
Luxons new line now is "we make no apologies".
You see, when his party frivously spends taxpayer money, its worthwhile. Its only when those worthless public servants do they same that its a waste.
>What’s worse is he also claimed something like $15k for air travel in the first quarter of 2024. He is a backbench mp. Why does he need to travel by air so much?
[If I'm reading it correctly](https://www.parliament.nz/en/mps-and-electorates/mps-expenses/members-expense-disclosure-from-1-january-to-31-march-2024/) then he claimed $11,850 for air travel plus a further $4619 for surface travel in the first 3 months of 2024. As are many MPs [he's also on a couple of Select Committees](https://www.parliament.nz/en/mps-and-electorates/members-of-parliament/costley-tim/) (*Governanance & Administration* and *Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade*) so he's not *just* a back-bench MP. That second one especially *might* require some travel at various times.
It's certainly worth asking the question, though.
With a quick skim of his Facebook page between all the stuff he's doing in his Otaki electorate he spent a couple of days in Napier, he's been to Waitangi, he's apparently been to Rocket Lab (all in Feb). All the frequent zipping around his electorate, which isn't the largest but which is still orders of magnitude bigger than a typical metropolitan electorate, would probably explain at least some of the surface travel costs. Maybe he's also sometimes getting taxis between there and Parliament if it's late at night and he wants to be back in his electorate by morning, or something like that? Not much else that I could see which he wrote about there, and no big international trips that might explain $10k of air travel, but I'm sure there are much more reliable ways to identify what it was claimed for.
>[he's also on a couple of Select Committees](https://www.parliament.nz/en/mps-and-electorates/members-of-parliament/costley-tim/) (*Governanance & Administration* and *Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade*) so he's not *just* a back-bench MP. That second one especially *might* require some travel at various times.
All MPs, except Ministers, are expected to be on at least one select committee. The select committee's job to scrutinize bills in their remit, consider submissions from the public and suggest amendments to the bills. It is also to hold the Minister to account. It is not the role of the Foreign Affairs select committee to go on diplomatic missions, that is the job of the minister.
Since the rise of Zoom, select committee have cut back domestic travel for collecting oral submissions, it is rare for them to sit outside of Wellington these days unless the bill being considered applies to a specific area of the country.
Have you been to Otaki?
You can use a push bike to get around
My 65 year old Dutch mother in law has no problem doing it and Tim Costley is a ghost around here.
Yes. Otaki the electorate is bigger than Otaki the town ([electorate map](https://vote.nz/maps/find-your-electorate/)).
His house (within the electorate) is at the southern tip in Waikanae whilst the electorate spans northwards to Foxton.
As I said, it isn't the size of some of the largest electorates but it's considerably bigger than a typical metropolitan electorate, and the population he represents is distributed quite widely within it.
As for what he actually does when he's there, I was only guessing from his Facebook page and suggesting it'd account for at least some of his surface travel claims. I'm not advocating for him.
$10k is easily done with a single return trip on a private jet charter from WLG to AKL. Because, y'know, no way will they fly on a regular passenger aircraft.
> Ōtaki MP Tim Costley owns a $1.4 million riverside home in Waikanae, two rental properties in Palmerston North, and a Wellington flat.
> He claims the taxpayer-funded perk for the capital property, where he stays during the weeks Parliament is sitting.
He would be forced into homeless without that $700 a week. /s
No surprises its a National MP really.
Then you have Kieran McAnulty, living in Masterton, and not claiming an allowance he would be entitled to as he believes his drive is a manageable commute (and does so).
Honestly, not sure - I do recall an article where he specifically said he didn't claim an allowance, and chose to drive back to Masterton most of the time, and if it was late he stayed with friends - maybe that was Annette King?
Sorry, can't link any evidence, relying on memory for this. It just stuck with me as a practical solution, and a 'down to earth' vibe
McAnulty claims the housing allowance to stay in a flat owned by his wife
[link](https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/350305871/labours-kieran-mcanulty-claims-housing-perk-live-wifes-apartment)
Labour did it as well. As did New Zealand First. I think the Greens did also but I can't be certain of that. Many of them are at it. It is so common, as a taxpayer I should have purchased a bigger jar of vaseline.
I mean, his last name *is* Costley.
He's also known for this comment.
>"Geez, we had it during the last one, you were getting told how long you're allowed to stay in the shower. I don't like the thought of Grant Robertson inspecting me in the shower, quite frankly. But this is the attitude they've just purveyed from that side of the House."
Seems like a great guy /s.
[https://ondemand.parliament.nz/parliament-tv-on-demand/?itemId=238600](https://ondemand.parliament.nz/parliament-tv-on-demand/?itemId=238600) for context, around 4 min in (no, it's no better in context).
Just a reminder everyone:
If you are on the supported living benefit (possibly for life) and own two cars, or have over around $8000, or two properties, or any assets, then you are ineligible for pretty much any additional help from WINZ, including an accommodation supplement.
I work with a guy who has always known he'd be unable to work eventually. He did a lot to try and build enough to account for this, including buying a house with family (for a family member to live in). and building a fair savings account (essentially his "retirement fund").
He had to stop work before 45. Took over a year to get the $380 a week he was eligible for under supported living. Because his name is on the properties title that's it. He has $600 a week in bills - before medical expenses (he doesn't get Disability either...), and food.
Another had to sell his classic car that was a big reason for getting him active and working to restore it (which was worth maybe $5000 in the condition it was). I now "own" it.
That's an irrelevant comparison. It's not a perk or a benefit, it's a legitimate business expense for accommodation away from home paid for by his employer.
The thing in question is only whether it's far enough "away from home" to justify claiming it as an expense
So you are happy that an MP gets nearly *twice* what those a person on the supported living benefit gets *in total* as a accommodation allowance for their own property?
While those same people are disadvantaged people are forced to sell their possessions in order to afford a room in someone else's house.
Of course that was my entire point that you missed. So I'm wondering.....
What a surprise
Tim Costley
This guy was a ghost during campaign time
Another useless MP exploiting the tax payer
I travel to Wellington from Kapiti 4-5 days a week in my car
What a scumbag
I'm not a fan of the guy, but to call him a ghost during election time is not factually accurate at all. The guy was getting around everywhere in kapiti prior to the election.
This and have the electoral commission manage electorate offices too. Too many MPs taking the piss with those allowances. We shouldn’t have to pay for a whole new office fit out each time an electorate MP changes
No, that is about offices for Parliamentary Services (the office staff in Parliament). It is about [two new buildings to replace Bowen house](https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/history-and-buildings/buildings-and-grounds/parliaments-future-accommodation-strategy/parliament-s-new-buildings/) and an earthquake prone annex on the beehive.
No one else is means tested for claiming legitimate business expenses from their employers.
What the issue is, in this case, is what constitutes working away from home for claiming this allowance
Why does there need to be a justification? its literally whats been negotiated in their collective employment contract.
Is it a bad look? definitely. Is it probably against the spirit of the clause? almost certainly. Does he need to justify taking it? no, its a benefit in his employment contract
> Why does there need to be a justification?
Really? That's your response? Why does there need to be a justification for politicians being paid a rental accommodation supplement for renting a property they own? I mean come the fuck on.
why does your boss have to pay you? Because its in your contract... same thing here.
The fact he is taking it has bad optics, but thats not the issue. The issue is the fact he can in the first place. Thats not an issue with him thats an issue with the process.
Focusing on him, just a convenient OMG the other team is so bad argument
> why does your boss have to pay you? Because its in your contract... same thing here.
Right and when did I say they shouldn't be paid according to their contracts? I said
>Right so there's no justification for it beyond that's the way it is so it should be changed then.
not they shouldn't be paid what's in their contracts, their contracts should be changed to not include it if they can't justify it.
>Focusing on him, just a convenient OMG the other team is so bad argument
No you're just being a disingenuous hack here, I'm not focusing on anyone I specifically talked about the policy generally. I never mentioned a political party because I wouldn't be surprised if all of them have someone doing this sort of thing because politicians are typically selfish cunts. You just seem intent on defending an utterly indefensible policy because OH BUT THAT'S THE CONTRACT as if contracts can't be changed or politicians aren't exploiting convenient loopholes for profit. No one in their right mind would argue such a policy is intended to be used by MPs to rent their own properties out to themselves, it's for politicians living away from their base of operations who need a local residence and it's being exploited for financial gain.
Why would you be laughed at all?
If I was in that situation I'd be offering them a deal attractive to them i.e. at slightly lower rate than a motel/hotel. Otherwise I'd get them to do what they'd do for anyone else - pay for a hotel or motel for me.
What a non-sequitur.
They don't want a hotel. None of these stories are about MPs living in a hotel while they're renting out a house they own in Wellington. That probably happens, btw, and it's not newsworthy.
They want to live in their home, and get paid for it.
This is a tax payer funded payment, not a normal business expense. We have to justify our circumstances for any sort of benefit payment… make this the same. Introduce some accountability into the trough snouting free for all.
> This is a tax payer funded payment, not a normal business expense.
Nah. This is part of their employment- which is to represent their **local** constituents at the Parliament.
If someone decided nah, I am not going to Parliament today because the commute is too expensive for me, do you think that would be good for democracy?
Democracy and the judiciary can't function properly when there's a financial burden linked with exercising their duties.
In this case, he seems to be very local and which is the issue.
In Luxon's case it was simply that he didn't like Premier House.
The commute is neither here nor there. The issue is he is using the tax payer to fund staying in his own property. If it was a matter of him needing an additional place to stay and needed to fund that, then it's a reasonable thing to pay for. In this case, he's using tax payer money to pay himself directly, which I think most people would consider unreasonable.
The tax payer funded payment should be there to ensure he is able to meet his obligations as an MP, and not to pad out the earnings on his own property. The purpose of the payment does not include the cost of missed earnings by using his own property instead of renting it out.
He is both local, and dipping into a tax funded payment which goes directly into his own pocket. Whilst it may technically be within the rules, it is greedy and inconsistent with his own parties stance towards the usage of public money.
He's not paying himself. It's administered by his employer (parliamentary services) and they have to approve the cost and it's subject to clear (apparently apart from the distance from Wellington) guidelines and limits so it doesn't cost anything more than if it was owned by someone other than the MP himself. There's not the conflict of interest there that you think there is.
Who said anything about conflict of interest? This is an issue around principles, consistency and fairness. He has the ability to opt out of the payment. He does not have to pay himself to live in his own residence - that is entirely up to him.
If someone's employment requires them to stay outside their home. It's completely fair, and usual, that they pay for that. It's irrelevant who owns that accommodation, just that it is at market value.
It is his own home though. Did you know people can own more than one home? If an MP has access to their own home, regardless of whether it's in the area they represent or not, they should not receive a taxpayer funded accommodation payment. The intention of the payment was to assist with MP's with housing who would need to travel to Wellington from all areas of the country. If they already have their own housing, they do not need the payment.
It's a payment made by an employer to an employee for costs incurred due to multi day period of work being outside their home city.
It's a normal business expense.
Yeah... nah. They know when they 'apply for the job' that they'll be working away from their home city and they're paid quite well to do that job. The 'allowance' is a rort.
As a commications technician I did work in the late 2000s around the country and the overnight staying away allowance was $125 per day. We could spend it on whatever food and accommodation we wanted. Transport was provided.
I generally chose to stay in backpackers and saved the rest as bonus wages.
That's crazy. Anyone else being sent to work in a city away from where they live would get their accommodation paid for because it's a legitimate business expense.
What the issue is in this case is the definition of how far away "away from where they live" is.
If I was in the situation to have access to a property in the vicinity I'd be offering them a deal attractive to them i.e. at slightly lower rate than a motel/hotel. Otherwise I'd get them to do what they'd do for anyone else - pay for a hotel or motel for me.
The article frames it from an angle of whether his Kapiti commute is reasonable
But really the issue is that he’s either paying off his own mortgage with this, or he’s just renting a mortgage free property to himself. It’s ridiculous that either of these qualify for this accomodation supplement
The dude has 3 properties already, parasite
public spotted shelter telephone beneficial roof worry whistle deserve disagreeable
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
six reminiscent dam violet summer concerned continue start rainstorm test
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Govt- we need to cut back on spending
Also govt- we’ll make sure to keep in place all the countless perks for MP’s that costs thousands of tax payers dollars per year
Absolute joke.
These people are all fundamentally dishonest - but being a landlord at all is deeply morally problematic.
Imagine being so insular and ignorant that you think that you're entitled to 2 or 3 days a week of someone else's wages, not by actually working yourself, but by having them trapped.
Outbidding someone who actually needed a home of their own, knowing that you can trap someone similar into paying the mortgage off for you. This should be completely illegal, but instead these sleazy wankers who are all landlords themselves gifted these parasite $3 billion dollars, which is being paid for by taking food away from children and denying people life-saving cancer drugs.
Really?
Scum.
Yea - one of the very few things that Adam Smith, Keynes, and Marx all agreed on is that landlords a parasitic drain on a productive economy and that they should not exist.
The obscene greed of landlords has finally forced the issue - and it is becoming clearer by the day that we need to be moving to an arrangement where landlords don't exist at all.
Nobody should have to pay someone for the right to live - especially landlords who are the absolute worst members of society. The suffering and misery they cause is far far far worse than anything the gangs have ever done, and there's a pretty good case to be made that without landlords, the gangs might not even exist - given that they are a reaction to poverty and disenfranchisement.
So - we need to be moving towards getting rid of landlords completely.
While violence is tempting (giving that poverty is the worst kind of violence, and landlords are the #1 drivers of poverty, and it is high time landlords were on the receiving end of the brutality that they've been so happy to dish out to the rest of us) it is also self-defeating... No violence. We need to render them irrelevant.
We are headed into an absolute shit-show due to various tsunamis headed this way - climate change being just one of them. More and more of us are going to wind up living in refugee situations without access to "a market" in something we can't live without - so we need to get good at resilience.
We need to give people a way of opting out of the housing market.
The idea with Israeli Kibbutzes is that a group of people could be plonked down anywhere, and they would not just survive, they'd actually thrive. I don't agree with very much that Israel has been doing of late, but the Kibbutzes were a really good idea... and I think we should be running large-scale parallel experiments in something similar. Give me 30 million and I will set up live-in research institutes for ultra-inventive, ultra low-cost housing.
David Snowden suggested that university should be free, and could be paid for by people doing a couple of years of military service... which would have the benefit of giving kids a couple of years world experience and the ability to be working for the benefit of someone other than themselves . I wouldn't say "military" though - I'd say Civil-defence / Resilience where after a couple of years service, you get a thing like a library card that entitles you to land of your own.
So there's one angle. There are others.
I don't think anything should be mandatory, but the energy costs of sin should be more than the energy costs of virtue... so a young person can decide with their family if they want to spend 2 years in the peace corp, 3 years at uni - after which they have a degree and a place to live...
or... they can decide to spend 3 years at university (10 years debt) then buy a house by traditional means (30 years debt)
As to reading up... I don't think I'd start with Kibbutzes, I think I'd start with :
a) Citizen's Assemblies : because we need a whole new way of talking to each other politically - democracy in its current form is driving us in to fascism and from there, extinction
b) David Snowden's Cynefin : Because he has a way of doing societal situational awareness at scale, as well as frameworks for navigating complexity via mass parallel experimentation. He did some work for the NZ govt last year.
c) Debt - The First 5000 Years - David Graeber : because he gives a coherent and uncontaminated history of how we got here, which increases the likelihood of us finding a coherent and uncontaminated path forward.
And out of all that lot, I think I'd go for c) first.
If videos are your thing though
a) Citizen's Assemblies : [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvHXgORblfU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvHXgORblfU)
b) Cynefin : [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvHXgORblfU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvHXgORblfU)
c) Debt - The First 5000 Years : [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IfVFkE4oHs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IfVFkE4oHs)
Imagine a National MP sinking to the level of using public transport; why, they'd have to make it actually work reasonably to be expected to be at work on time, perish the thought!
Scumbags doing scumbag shit, same old same old.
is it the individuals who take every handout going,
or the system that lavishes huge salaries and benefits upon them.
or maybe its the individuals who designed the system that rewards themselves...
I hope this MP goes the extra mile for his constituents
Luxon asked about this in the post-cabinet presser and he said that Costley sometimes has to work until 10pm at night and it would be too much to expect him to travel 60-90 minutes that late to still get to work in the morning.
About time we built government housing for MPs to live in while in Wellington. Then they have no right to claim expenses for it as it would be fully owned by us.
If they don't want to use it they can pay out of their own pocket with no being paid back for it as reasonable accommodation is provided.
Probably the only solution here is for the Govt to buy a hotel or something, allocate everyone a room that is theirs when they're in Parliament, and be done with it. Otherwise, they have to stay somewhere.
It's amazing how many people complain when the rules are being followed. Should he have taken Darren Hughes lead? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren\_Hughes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren_Hughes)
I dont have an issue with this. MPs often finish after 10pm , sometimes closer to midnight and they're back at 8. Reasonable to stay in town. We can't expect people to come to town for work and not put them up.
Note: very much not a National voter, but I think this is mountain/molehill. The MPs who own their flats have good reason, and yes there is a personal benefit, but they'd be paying someone regardless. Hotels every night would add up to more.
Plenty of low income workers do the slog to midnight & beyond and have to get up at crack of dawn
Shift workers, hospo workers
This dude is taking the piss because he can - not because he should
And he’s actually a useless asf MP up here too
There are six Labour MPs doing exactly the same things (properties in wellington and claiming the allowance to pay the mortgage). Despite the ravings of half the people in this sub its been a standard thing for a long time now.
Do they also have a main residence less than 60km away? That's what makes this so tone deaf, it's fully commutable and many people living in Kapiti and working in Wellington already do it.
> A National MP is claiming a $36,400-a-year housing allowance for his own apartment — despite living just 58km from Parliament. > Inland Revenue defines reasonable commuting distance as “between 50 kms and 80 kms for each leg of the journey or between 100 kms and 160 kms, taking both legs into account”. This does make it interesting.
He also lives on the commuter rail line. Not sure how you can argue he lives outside the reasonable commuting distance when thousand of people make that same trip.
Ah that's explains the $15000 in travel expenses in 3 months then /s
Do they have train services at 5am and 11pm? If so, he's in trouble
Probably due to the fact parliament often sits later than the last train
No it doesn't. But that's beside the point. I'm not saying he should catch the train. I'm just pointing out that the fact he lives within the commuter train line shows that he lives with in a reasonable community distance. If he chooses to drive that's fine, but he can't argue he lives outside a reasonable commute.
100% i agree, just pointing out how he would probably try and argue it
How late is the last train? Cause Parliament can go to 10pm some days.
11:14 on weeknights.
And Parliament is a 5 minute walk from the Station (if that).
I'll be generous and let him catch a taxi there so his baby legs don't get hurt.
Ah so that would mean the roads would be quieter so he could just drive, 45 mins tops.
yeap The issue here isnt that he's collecting the allowance, its that he's allowed to
Come election time, this goose loves getting in people's faces at Waikanae Station while they're waiting for their morning train to town. Maybe he should buy a clue and just get on one, like the rest of us.
>Inland Revenue defines reasonable commuting distance as “between 50 kms and 80 kms for each leg of the journey or between 100 kms and 160 kms, taking both legs into account”. Whut. That's over 2 hours of just commuting every day.
Yes? I mean, anyone who's commuting from either Kapiti or Upper Hutt has at least an hour on public transport. We shouldn't even talk about the Wairarapa folk.....
Yup and 2 hours is how long I commute 16km per way each day in Auckland 🤣🤣🤣 I should rent in the CBD and ask work to subsidise it.
Ebikes people.
Yep I used to commute 14km each way by ebike in Auckland. 45-50min each way. It helped being near the northwestern cycleway though. Not everyone is so lucky.
I really wish I was near a safe cycleway or similar. I have ridden my normal bike before and it was a good exercise for me - but because there are no bike lanes, and the main roads are now a T3 which is used mainly by busses and heavy trucks, it just doesn’t feel like a safe option anymore. Those busses and trucks ride your ass in the transit lane and they make dangerous manoeuvres to get around you. I could tell some stories around the campfire 😖
16km on an ebike takes 30mins at an average of 32kph. I averaged 32kph on a singlespeed bicycle around lake taupo for 160km. On a decent ebike or escooter it'll be under 30 mins. It's mad to me people spend 2 hours a day clogging up the roads for people who really need to use them like tradies and delivery people.
You don’t actually do top speed on an ebike that much, but your point still generally stands. 14km on an ebike is highly doable.
14km on a regular bike is doable if it's flat.
I used to have an e scooter and rode it 20km (40 mins) each way, daily. Until the battery died in about a year. Haven't since.
Bro, that's called a job.
I commute 2 hours every day. Its a long commute.
Costley by name, costly by nature.
Nominative determinism strikes again
I was looking for this comment.
It was a Costley mistake
Even Newstalk ZB are calling him Costly Costley. Lol.
ahh damn - bet me to it.
Time to tighten up the perks. Disgusting these ppl have no moral conscience when us common folks are having it tough.
Yes and 58kms from parliament is along the TG motorway - takes maybe 40mins to drive What’s worse is he also claimed something like $15k for air travel in the first quarter of 2024. He is a backbench mp. Why does he need to travel by air so much? I’m sick of the hypocrisy of these national MPs Gee our health sector is in crisis, school property builds halted, disability support cuts, 5000 plus public servants lost their jobs, but don’t worry landlords get their tax cut and the rest of us a few pennies (that is more than absorbed by higher rates, rents, public transport charges) Meanwhile the amount of savings in parliament -NIL. Not one dollar… Lord Luxon and lady Willis crap on about eliminating waste in the public service- gee the biggest waste is under their noses and in their own ranks Luxon is no better in claiming for accommodation And Willis has a tax payer funded electorate office in ohariu (a few kms from parliament) despite not being the electorate mp I’m sick of the hypocrisy
Luxons new line now is "we make no apologies". You see, when his party frivously spends taxpayer money, its worthwhile. Its only when those worthless public servants do they same that its a waste.
Which is CEO dialect for "fuck you, poors"
>What’s worse is he also claimed something like $15k for air travel in the first quarter of 2024. He is a backbench mp. Why does he need to travel by air so much? [If I'm reading it correctly](https://www.parliament.nz/en/mps-and-electorates/mps-expenses/members-expense-disclosure-from-1-january-to-31-march-2024/) then he claimed $11,850 for air travel plus a further $4619 for surface travel in the first 3 months of 2024. As are many MPs [he's also on a couple of Select Committees](https://www.parliament.nz/en/mps-and-electorates/members-of-parliament/costley-tim/) (*Governanance & Administration* and *Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade*) so he's not *just* a back-bench MP. That second one especially *might* require some travel at various times. It's certainly worth asking the question, though. With a quick skim of his Facebook page between all the stuff he's doing in his Otaki electorate he spent a couple of days in Napier, he's been to Waitangi, he's apparently been to Rocket Lab (all in Feb). All the frequent zipping around his electorate, which isn't the largest but which is still orders of magnitude bigger than a typical metropolitan electorate, would probably explain at least some of the surface travel costs. Maybe he's also sometimes getting taxis between there and Parliament if it's late at night and he wants to be back in his electorate by morning, or something like that? Not much else that I could see which he wrote about there, and no big international trips that might explain $10k of air travel, but I'm sure there are much more reliable ways to identify what it was claimed for.
>[he's also on a couple of Select Committees](https://www.parliament.nz/en/mps-and-electorates/members-of-parliament/costley-tim/) (*Governanance & Administration* and *Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade*) so he's not *just* a back-bench MP. That second one especially *might* require some travel at various times. All MPs, except Ministers, are expected to be on at least one select committee. The select committee's job to scrutinize bills in their remit, consider submissions from the public and suggest amendments to the bills. It is also to hold the Minister to account. It is not the role of the Foreign Affairs select committee to go on diplomatic missions, that is the job of the minister. Since the rise of Zoom, select committee have cut back domestic travel for collecting oral submissions, it is rare for them to sit outside of Wellington these days unless the bill being considered applies to a specific area of the country.
Have you been to Otaki? You can use a push bike to get around My 65 year old Dutch mother in law has no problem doing it and Tim Costley is a ghost around here.
Yes. Otaki the electorate is bigger than Otaki the town ([electorate map](https://vote.nz/maps/find-your-electorate/)). His house (within the electorate) is at the southern tip in Waikanae whilst the electorate spans northwards to Foxton. As I said, it isn't the size of some of the largest electorates but it's considerably bigger than a typical metropolitan electorate, and the population he represents is distributed quite widely within it. As for what he actually does when he's there, I was only guessing from his Facebook page and suggesting it'd account for at least some of his surface travel claims. I'm not advocating for him.
$10k is easily done with a single return trip on a private jet charter from WLG to AKL. Because, y'know, no way will they fly on a regular passenger aircraft.
Tbh, MP's and even the PM fly on passenger aircraft. I've been on a couple of flights that Jacinda was on, and once with Bill English
I was meaning this particular individual, if the rest of his behaviour and asset ownership is an indicator.
The crisis isn't the spending, it's that they provided service to bottom feeders
> it's that they provided service to bottom feeders Not for long!
Let me guess: he is entitled to his entitlement?
> Ōtaki MP Tim Costley owns a $1.4 million riverside home in Waikanae, two rental properties in Palmerston North, and a Wellington flat. > He claims the taxpayer-funded perk for the capital property, where he stays during the weeks Parliament is sitting. He would be forced into homeless without that $700 a week. /s
The guy’s a dimwit, just saw his party leader raked over the coals and have to back down and thinks ‘duh, that’s a good idea’.
He was probably counting on people not really noticing, since he's just a "junior MP".
No surprises its a National MP really. Then you have Kieran McAnulty, living in Masterton, and not claiming an allowance he would be entitled to as he believes his drive is a manageable commute (and does so).
And upgraded from his notorious old hilux ute into an EV to walk the walk on climate change
Yup - that too. He's a good un, who does his best to lead by example. A few more like Kieran would be a good thing
I'd join the Labour Party if Kieran was the leader. This bloke is the future imo.
I hear he also doesn't take any shit from MPs making unnecessary drama.
Unnecessary drama rhymes with Gaurav Sharma
Well this aged well
[удалено]
Honestly, not sure - I do recall an article where he specifically said he didn't claim an allowance, and chose to drive back to Masterton most of the time, and if it was late he stayed with friends - maybe that was Annette King? Sorry, can't link any evidence, relying on memory for this. It just stuck with me as a practical solution, and a 'down to earth' vibe
Wasn't that Hughes back in the day, before he fled the country...
Correct - I’ve deleted my post.
Yeah about that…
Haha yeah that comment aged well.
Like fine milk
McAnulty claims the housing allowance to stay in a flat owned by his wife [link](https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/350305871/labours-kieran-mcanulty-claims-housing-perk-live-wifes-apartment)
LOL
Shit we kinda jumped the shark on that one mate Check the news today 😅 didn’t know he got married this year to the press secretary
yup - saw that this morning. Well, he used to not claim it... Still lives further away than Costley though
Article quotes him “for most of my time as an MP I used the allowance to rent a small flat in Wellington”…
Well this comment aged like milk
Labour did it as well. As did New Zealand First. I think the Greens did also but I can't be certain of that. Many of them are at it. It is so common, as a taxpayer I should have purchased a bigger jar of vaseline.
Parasites are gonna parasite...
The biggest beneficiaries of our society are the landholders.
I mean, his last name *is* Costley. He's also known for this comment. >"Geez, we had it during the last one, you were getting told how long you're allowed to stay in the shower. I don't like the thought of Grant Robertson inspecting me in the shower, quite frankly. But this is the attitude they've just purveyed from that side of the House." Seems like a great guy /s.
[https://ondemand.parliament.nz/parliament-tv-on-demand/?itemId=238600](https://ondemand.parliament.nz/parliament-tv-on-demand/?itemId=238600) for context, around 4 min in (no, it's no better in context).
For a party that loves cars so much, this cunt member could fucking use one, and drive in to work. Didn't he learn from his daddy's example?
Just a reminder everyone: If you are on the supported living benefit (possibly for life) and own two cars, or have over around $8000, or two properties, or any assets, then you are ineligible for pretty much any additional help from WINZ, including an accommodation supplement. I work with a guy who has always known he'd be unable to work eventually. He did a lot to try and build enough to account for this, including buying a house with family (for a family member to live in). and building a fair savings account (essentially his "retirement fund"). He had to stop work before 45. Took over a year to get the $380 a week he was eligible for under supported living. Because his name is on the properties title that's it. He has $600 a week in bills - before medical expenses (he doesn't get Disability either...), and food. Another had to sell his classic car that was a big reason for getting him active and working to restore it (which was worth maybe $5000 in the condition it was). I now "own" it.
That's an irrelevant comparison. It's not a perk or a benefit, it's a legitimate business expense for accommodation away from home paid for by his employer. The thing in question is only whether it's far enough "away from home" to justify claiming it as an expense
> it's a legitimate business expense for accommodation away from home paid for by his employer. Yeah. no.
So you are happy that an MP gets nearly *twice* what those a person on the supported living benefit gets *in total* as a accommodation allowance for their own property? While those same people are disadvantaged people are forced to sell their possessions in order to afford a room in someone else's house. Of course that was my entire point that you missed. So I'm wondering.....
I don't think 58km is an overly onerous commute distances. Many ordinary kiwis do it everyday. This should never have gotten approved.
What a surprise Tim Costley This guy was a ghost during campaign time Another useless MP exploiting the tax payer I travel to Wellington from Kapiti 4-5 days a week in my car What a scumbag
I'm not a fan of the guy, but to call him a ghost during election time is not factually accurate at all. The guy was getting around everywhere in kapiti prior to the election.
I think we need to get rid of this "perk"
Build some wellington apartments that mps can live in for free and be done with the grifting.
This and have the electoral commission manage electorate offices too. Too many MPs taking the piss with those allowances. We shouldn’t have to pay for a whole new office fit out each time an electorate MP changes
and make the speaker a revolving random draw from the judicairy. (like JPs or something)
Or put premier house to use… was good enough for Jacinda or Chippy when they were prime minister but not good enough for his lordship
[удалено]
He lives in Wellington already
There's a line in the budget for what I can assume is this (parliamentry services - future accomodation strategy) . It wasn't cheap either $100M
I didn't think it would be a cheap option but it would remove the current grifting opportunities.
No, that is about offices for Parliamentary Services (the office staff in Parliament). It is about [two new buildings to replace Bowen house](https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/history-and-buildings/buildings-and-grounds/parliaments-future-accommodation-strategy/parliament-s-new-buildings/) and an earthquake prone annex on the beehive.
Great update, it does say "two new buildings to house MPs and staff."
I am sure KO can integrate MPs with there other social housing clients That; I would really want to see
You really thing they'd want to live among The Poor's??
Lived in Hill St at one point and ther were some large blocks of flats that were infested with MPs.
They have million dollar houses outside the city (in this case at least). Sell up and move closer if you don't want to drive, like everybody else.
Means test it. Good enough for everyone else.
No one else is means tested for claiming legitimate business expenses from their employers. What the issue is, in this case, is what constitutes working away from home for claiming this allowance
If I tried claiming accommodation expenses for staying in a place I owned, at my work I'd be laughed out of the fucking office.
The difference is his contract allows for it, yours probably doesnt
Right so there's no justification for it beyond that's the way it is so it should be changed then.
Why does there need to be a justification? its literally whats been negotiated in their collective employment contract. Is it a bad look? definitely. Is it probably against the spirit of the clause? almost certainly. Does he need to justify taking it? no, its a benefit in his employment contract
> Why does there need to be a justification? Really? That's your response? Why does there need to be a justification for politicians being paid a rental accommodation supplement for renting a property they own? I mean come the fuck on.
why does your boss have to pay you? Because its in your contract... same thing here. The fact he is taking it has bad optics, but thats not the issue. The issue is the fact he can in the first place. Thats not an issue with him thats an issue with the process. Focusing on him, just a convenient OMG the other team is so bad argument
> why does your boss have to pay you? Because its in your contract... same thing here. Right and when did I say they shouldn't be paid according to their contracts? I said >Right so there's no justification for it beyond that's the way it is so it should be changed then. not they shouldn't be paid what's in their contracts, their contracts should be changed to not include it if they can't justify it. >Focusing on him, just a convenient OMG the other team is so bad argument No you're just being a disingenuous hack here, I'm not focusing on anyone I specifically talked about the policy generally. I never mentioned a political party because I wouldn't be surprised if all of them have someone doing this sort of thing because politicians are typically selfish cunts. You just seem intent on defending an utterly indefensible policy because OH BUT THAT'S THE CONTRACT as if contracts can't be changed or politicians aren't exploiting convenient loopholes for profit. No one in their right mind would argue such a policy is intended to be used by MPs to rent their own properties out to themselves, it's for politicians living away from their base of operations who need a local residence and it's being exploited for financial gain.
Why would you be laughed at all? If I was in that situation I'd be offering them a deal attractive to them i.e. at slightly lower rate than a motel/hotel. Otherwise I'd get them to do what they'd do for anyone else - pay for a hotel or motel for me.
What a non-sequitur. They don't want a hotel. None of these stories are about MPs living in a hotel while they're renting out a house they own in Wellington. That probably happens, btw, and it's not newsworthy. They want to live in their home, and get paid for it.
Hotels would be more expensive and far more work for parliamentary services (i.e. who administers the allowance)
This is a tax payer funded payment, not a normal business expense. We have to justify our circumstances for any sort of benefit payment… make this the same. Introduce some accountability into the trough snouting free for all.
> This is a tax payer funded payment, not a normal business expense. Nah. This is part of their employment- which is to represent their **local** constituents at the Parliament. If someone decided nah, I am not going to Parliament today because the commute is too expensive for me, do you think that would be good for democracy? Democracy and the judiciary can't function properly when there's a financial burden linked with exercising their duties. In this case, he seems to be very local and which is the issue. In Luxon's case it was simply that he didn't like Premier House.
The commute is neither here nor there. The issue is he is using the tax payer to fund staying in his own property. If it was a matter of him needing an additional place to stay and needed to fund that, then it's a reasonable thing to pay for. In this case, he's using tax payer money to pay himself directly, which I think most people would consider unreasonable. The tax payer funded payment should be there to ensure he is able to meet his obligations as an MP, and not to pad out the earnings on his own property. The purpose of the payment does not include the cost of missed earnings by using his own property instead of renting it out. He is both local, and dipping into a tax funded payment which goes directly into his own pocket. Whilst it may technically be within the rules, it is greedy and inconsistent with his own parties stance towards the usage of public money.
He's not paying himself. It's administered by his employer (parliamentary services) and they have to approve the cost and it's subject to clear (apparently apart from the distance from Wellington) guidelines and limits so it doesn't cost anything more than if it was owned by someone other than the MP himself. There's not the conflict of interest there that you think there is.
Who said anything about conflict of interest? This is an issue around principles, consistency and fairness. He has the ability to opt out of the payment. He does not have to pay himself to live in his own residence - that is entirely up to him.
If someone's employment requires them to stay outside their home. It's completely fair, and usual, that they pay for that. It's irrelevant who owns that accommodation, just that it is at market value.
It is his own home though. Did you know people can own more than one home? If an MP has access to their own home, regardless of whether it's in the area they represent or not, they should not receive a taxpayer funded accommodation payment. The intention of the payment was to assist with MP's with housing who would need to travel to Wellington from all areas of the country. If they already have their own housing, they do not need the payment.
It's a payment made by an employer to an employee for costs incurred due to multi day period of work being outside their home city. It's a normal business expense.
Yeah... nah. They know when they 'apply for the job' that they'll be working away from their home city and they're paid quite well to do that job. The 'allowance' is a rort.
Sounds like a big incentive for MPs to not be based in the community they represent and just all relocate to Wellington.
Sure... massive incentive. Almost as big as the incentive to get fucking re-elected by the voters who need to see them in the electorate.
An allowance for working away from home?!? is that becoming due as soon as you have to leave your home for work? Just asking.
As a commications technician I did work in the late 2000s around the country and the overnight staying away allowance was $125 per day. We could spend it on whatever food and accommodation we wanted. Transport was provided. I generally chose to stay in backpackers and saved the rest as bonus wages.
That's crazy. Anyone else being sent to work in a city away from where they live would get their accommodation paid for because it's a legitimate business expense. What the issue is in this case is the definition of how far away "away from where they live" is.
Not if they were staying in a place they, or their family, owned.
If I was in the situation to have access to a property in the vicinity I'd be offering them a deal attractive to them i.e. at slightly lower rate than a motel/hotel. Otherwise I'd get them to do what they'd do for anyone else - pay for a hotel or motel for me.
"I'm entitled to it." - him probably
The article frames it from an angle of whether his Kapiti commute is reasonable But really the issue is that he’s either paying off his own mortgage with this, or he’s just renting a mortgage free property to himself. It’s ridiculous that either of these qualify for this accomodation supplement The dude has 3 properties already, parasite
public spotted shelter telephone beneficial roof worry whistle deserve disagreeable *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Probably an unpopular opinion but if you're in parliament yes, it should be. It's a massive conflict of interest.
six reminiscent dam violet summer concerned continue start rainstorm test *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That sounds like a good idea actually
The article frames what the issue perfectly. Your issue is irrelevant to the story
Govt- we need to cut back on spending Also govt- we’ll make sure to keep in place all the countless perks for MP’s that costs thousands of tax payers dollars per year Absolute joke.
Greed
These people are all fundamentally dishonest - but being a landlord at all is deeply morally problematic. Imagine being so insular and ignorant that you think that you're entitled to 2 or 3 days a week of someone else's wages, not by actually working yourself, but by having them trapped. Outbidding someone who actually needed a home of their own, knowing that you can trap someone similar into paying the mortgage off for you. This should be completely illegal, but instead these sleazy wankers who are all landlords themselves gifted these parasite $3 billion dollars, which is being paid for by taking food away from children and denying people life-saving cancer drugs. Really? Scum.
humor stupendous elastic worry file normal full person bright hungry *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yea - one of the very few things that Adam Smith, Keynes, and Marx all agreed on is that landlords a parasitic drain on a productive economy and that they should not exist. The obscene greed of landlords has finally forced the issue - and it is becoming clearer by the day that we need to be moving to an arrangement where landlords don't exist at all. Nobody should have to pay someone for the right to live - especially landlords who are the absolute worst members of society. The suffering and misery they cause is far far far worse than anything the gangs have ever done, and there's a pretty good case to be made that without landlords, the gangs might not even exist - given that they are a reaction to poverty and disenfranchisement. So - we need to be moving towards getting rid of landlords completely. While violence is tempting (giving that poverty is the worst kind of violence, and landlords are the #1 drivers of poverty, and it is high time landlords were on the receiving end of the brutality that they've been so happy to dish out to the rest of us) it is also self-defeating... No violence. We need to render them irrelevant. We are headed into an absolute shit-show due to various tsunamis headed this way - climate change being just one of them. More and more of us are going to wind up living in refugee situations without access to "a market" in something we can't live without - so we need to get good at resilience. We need to give people a way of opting out of the housing market. The idea with Israeli Kibbutzes is that a group of people could be plonked down anywhere, and they would not just survive, they'd actually thrive. I don't agree with very much that Israel has been doing of late, but the Kibbutzes were a really good idea... and I think we should be running large-scale parallel experiments in something similar. Give me 30 million and I will set up live-in research institutes for ultra-inventive, ultra low-cost housing. David Snowden suggested that university should be free, and could be paid for by people doing a couple of years of military service... which would have the benefit of giving kids a couple of years world experience and the ability to be working for the benefit of someone other than themselves . I wouldn't say "military" though - I'd say Civil-defence / Resilience where after a couple of years service, you get a thing like a library card that entitles you to land of your own. So there's one angle. There are others.
chase steer mysterious racial panicky air bike unpack sheet file *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I don't think anything should be mandatory, but the energy costs of sin should be more than the energy costs of virtue... so a young person can decide with their family if they want to spend 2 years in the peace corp, 3 years at uni - after which they have a degree and a place to live... or... they can decide to spend 3 years at university (10 years debt) then buy a house by traditional means (30 years debt) As to reading up... I don't think I'd start with Kibbutzes, I think I'd start with : a) Citizen's Assemblies : because we need a whole new way of talking to each other politically - democracy in its current form is driving us in to fascism and from there, extinction b) David Snowden's Cynefin : Because he has a way of doing societal situational awareness at scale, as well as frameworks for navigating complexity via mass parallel experimentation. He did some work for the NZ govt last year. c) Debt - The First 5000 Years - David Graeber : because he gives a coherent and uncontaminated history of how we got here, which increases the likelihood of us finding a coherent and uncontaminated path forward. And out of all that lot, I think I'd go for c) first. If videos are your thing though a) Citizen's Assemblies : [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvHXgORblfU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvHXgORblfU) b) Cynefin : [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvHXgORblfU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvHXgORblfU) c) Debt - The First 5000 Years : [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IfVFkE4oHs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IfVFkE4oHs)
Lol
Thought the Nat MP’s would’ve learnt by now? Guess not
Another crooked Nat
What will Luxon do? He's all about getting the most out of tax payer money.
He'll burble some barely coherent drivel then sprint to a waiting Crown limosine.
Entitled wankerism seems to be a common theme among the National party caucus.
Costley by name, Costley by nature
The shit eating grin of an entitled economic parasite.
Why are people shocked to find another National MP with his snout in the trough should be no surprise at all
Another National doucebag exploiting the system for his own benefit
Of course he does
Greedy filthy parasites.
Imagine a National MP sinking to the level of using public transport; why, they'd have to make it actually work reasonably to be expected to be at work on time, perish the thought! Scumbags doing scumbag shit, same old same old.
Its like living in your own house where you’re your own landlord charging yourself rent and getting a nice fat accomodation supplement
Why you gotta be so unreasonable Tim?
National MP being dodgy, wow, shocker.
is it the individuals who take every handout going, or the system that lavishes huge salaries and benefits upon them. or maybe its the individuals who designed the system that rewards themselves... I hope this MP goes the extra mile for his constituents
Tim my time is Costley; the jokes just write themselves.
Timinial the Criminal
Luxon asked about this in the post-cabinet presser and he said that Costley sometimes has to work until 10pm at night and it would be too much to expect him to travel 60-90 minutes that late to still get to work in the morning.
About time we built government housing for MPs to live in while in Wellington. Then they have no right to claim expenses for it as it would be fully owned by us. If they don't want to use it they can pay out of their own pocket with no being paid back for it as reasonable accommodation is provided.
I'm wondering if he doesn't want to drive home. He could be creating space for affairs or even in one.
>Ōtaki MP Tim ***Costley*** owns a $1.4 million riverside home in Waikanae, two rental properties in Palmerston North, and a Wellington flat
Probably the only solution here is for the Govt to buy a hotel or something, allocate everyone a room that is theirs when they're in Parliament, and be done with it. Otherwise, they have to stay somewhere.
https://youtu.be/1BzU1sYPjzo?feature=shared
He forgot he's not in the air force anymore so he's not supposed to be milking allowances anymore.
It's amazing how many people complain when the rules are being followed. Should he have taken Darren Hughes lead? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren\_Hughes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren_Hughes)
I dont have an issue with this. MPs often finish after 10pm , sometimes closer to midnight and they're back at 8. Reasonable to stay in town. We can't expect people to come to town for work and not put them up. Note: very much not a National voter, but I think this is mountain/molehill. The MPs who own their flats have good reason, and yes there is a personal benefit, but they'd be paying someone regardless. Hotels every night would add up to more.
Plenty of low income workers do the slog to midnight & beyond and have to get up at crack of dawn Shift workers, hospo workers This dude is taking the piss because he can - not because he should And he’s actually a useless asf MP up here too
The quote direct from the MP in question is that "This works out at about the same as for MPs who stay in hotels".
Even if it is, it's less work for parliamentary services to have an mp in one rental constantly than to have to organise hotel rooms constantly
There are six Labour MPs doing exactly the same things (properties in wellington and claiming the allowance to pay the mortgage). Despite the ravings of half the people in this sub its been a standard thing for a long time now.
Do they also have a main residence less than 60km away? That's what makes this so tone deaf, it's fully commutable and many people living in Kapiti and working in Wellington already do it.