therefore no story unless it is a campaign to remove those payments from all Polies - if not then you all should shut up. Nope, that made no sense the three times I read it.

What NAtional may have said in opposition is nothing like their policy in government, mis-c - are they still fooling you? Rich-bot, if your (flawed) thesis about National fooling people was true, then they have just suckered in one of the largest unions in the country who are now backing National policy. I refer of course to the TEU that I posted about this morning. But then again, being flawed is S.O.P. for you, eh?

Especially as Labour is/has been the worst offender of the bloody lot! I'm not arguing that Labour didn't.  I'm very much enjoying you fill an entire thread with own-goals. That's because the OP is as thick as two short planks..  No wonder McGrath is happy to have such an intellectual giant as his Libz Usenet mouthpiece. This is about rorts committed by Politicians of ALL Parties. Indeed so, but were you not so profoundly thick or dishonest - or, more likely, both - you'd know the thread has advanced to include references to your own lack of principle and probity. - making you no different from the shonky politicians under discussion.  You, English, Goff et al are essentially one and the same. Indeed, the dismal irony you labour under is that you and they are indelibly daubed by the same unwholesome tarbrush, the sole exception being that the pig-sty stink of your own rank hypocrisy extinguishes that of theirs and the tar..

In any event, National is not obliged to follow Helen Clark's dictates in this regard, especially noting that even if she represented a Wellington electorate she would have no doubt moved into Premier House sold her own house and invested elsewhere.  In this regard it is also worth noting that she apparently tried to 'swing' free accommodation in New York, despite her UN job conditions requiring her to meet housing costs from her salary. Cite for this peterwn?   Yes, Kiwis in the know in New Youk via Kiwiblog or Whaleoil.  If you doubt the reliability of these blogs, you provide the rebuttal.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&_object_id=10588307 Mr English is the MP for Clutha-Southland. His wife, Mary, is a general practitioner working in Wellington and their six children live with them and go to school in Wellington. They were renting for years but bought a place in Karori in 2007 after having to move twice from rented places. While his wife and children are clearly Wellington-_base_d, he says his primary residence is the family home in Dipton in his electorate. National, the party of principles! Dear NZ As a Minister of the Crown who has my home in Southland I am en_title_d to a Ministerial House in Wellington and use of the CR registered cars just as ministers from both National and Labour have been en_title_d to for many, many, many years  Ministers have been traditionally expected to be _base_d in Wellington and have their families with them, especially as Parliamentary work places enormous strains on marriages and families.  While this has less relevance nowadays for Ministers from Auckland or Christchurch, it remains relevant for Ministers from the likes of Dipton.. In my case it was more convenient to stay put in my current accommodation in Karori.  The housing allowance I receive is less than what it would cost for Ministerial Services to rent a suitable for me. ['open letter ends'] All decent Kiwis would accept that his Ministerial accommodation need to be of a sort suitable for a Deputy Prime Minister. In any event, National is not obliged to follow Helen Clark's dictates in this regard, especially noting that even if she represented a Wellington electorate she would have no doubt moved into Premier House sold her own house and invested elsewhere. In this regard it is also worth noting that she apparently tried to 'swing' free accommodation in New York, despite her UN job conditions requiring her to meet housing costs from her salary. Therefore Sailor Sam, other Labour Party shills should put the facts properly on the table.  The various journos for Granny Herald and Fairfax/Stuff should also do some impartial and balanced investigative journalism rather than swallow the line fed by Labour Party spin doctors.  This also smacks of a Labour initiative to divert the main stream media away from the National Party conference which pretty well succeeded because of the fecklessness of the main stream media. If the editors had any guts these journos would be 'on the mat' this morning for failing to be proper journos. I'd like to know how much Clark spent, travelling from Auckland to Wgtn then back, in a year. why? Because I'll bet it's MORE than English gets for his Wgtn home, that's why. Especially considering the limo ride to the airport, the bodyguards that accompany her, the pick up at the other end, bodyguards etc. That would all add up to a very tidy sum indeed. Travel costs are just them doing their job, Most people I know have to pay their own travel costs to and from work. And 'traveling' is NOT doing a job. Well they arent 'most people' - they are required to be in parliament and in their electorate so if travel isnt paid for then thier wages should be far higher to compensate. Swings and roundabouts. and a fair chunk of that goes to AirNZ some of which goes back into our coffers anyway. But if they have perk fiddles - thats not on. Name just 1 'perk fiddle' you think Labour Politicians are on. here is one that they all seem to be on. Bill English should be ashamed of himself. And so should any other politician that is doing the same. Party politics dont come into it. Are you talking about travel, or getting rent for your own house? They all get travel, but not all ask for rent for their own house. I dont have a problem with travel. I do have a problem with English (and whoever else is doing it) fiddling the benefits. He should be treated as a benefit fiddler IMO. I think they should all be scrutinised. Labour had several last term IIRC - I bet there are still more on all sides. Of course. Take the Greens, since 2001 they have purchased houses in Wgton and funded them with their 8% contribution to superannuation, plus the Taxpayers 20% contribution to the super, plus their annual accommodation allowance of $24,000. In short they've bought houses at close to 100% debt and after 6-7 years they own it outright and still get the $24,000 allowance. The Greens? So is this a collective thing where they all have to do it? Or is this just a pop at a political party. If you know facts, John, then spill them about all parties, with names. Its something that DPF put out back in May. JC Political watchers around the world have been following the saga of the UK parliamentary expenses scandals. UK Labour has dropped to 22% in the latest poll, as the Telegraph reveals claims for mortgages that were paid off, moat cleaning and the like. Most of these excesses are not possible in NZ, as MPs don’t get to claim accommodation expenses except rent and interest on mortgages. But even then, we have not been lily white. Now many readers will remember the scams by Labour’s Marian Hobbs and Phillida Bunkle from the Alliance who were claiming such expenses, despite both being Wellington _base_d MP with homes in Wellington. Bunkle did it by claiming her primary residence was a bach just north of the Wellington boundary, and Hobbs claimed her primary residence was in Christchurch, despite having stood for Wellington Central. This made the scam legal – but not ethical. The point of such expense regimes, is that an MP is not left worse off for just doing their job. If an Auckland MP has to spend three nights a week in Wellington, then of course they should not pay personally for it. But the idea is not that an MP who normally lives in Wellington, can make some extra money. But the Bunkle/Hobbs method is not the only way, an MP can benefit from the expenses claims.In the light of the UK revelations, I thought it would be useful to highlight other ways an MP can benefit. Look at section 3.30(1)(b) of the expense directions and it states an MP can be reimbursed for actual and reasonable accommodation expenses in Wellington, if they live outside the Wellington commuting area for.      (i) accommodation owned by that member; or      (ii) accommodation rented by that member on a continuous basis for use in lieu of overnight accommodation; or      (iii) accommodation in commercial premises; or      (iv) other private accommodation. Let us look at each of these in turn, and who benefits from what: (iii) accommodation in commercial premises This is where the MP stays in a Wellington hotel, as many do. They can claim up to $160 a night, up to a maximum of $24,000 a year. That means a maximum of 150 nights a year can be claimed – an average of three nights a week. In this case the MP gains no benefit. It is nice and simple. Not that popular with some MPs though as it means they have to book in everytime, and have no permanent _base_ where they can leave clothes etc. (iii) other private accommodation This is where the MP stays in a private residence not owned by them – probably owned by a friend. They can claim up to $50 a night, up to a maximum of $24,000 a year. In this case the MP gains no benefit, but the home owner can benefit, and they may be related to the MP. Having said that I am not sure if any MP uses this option. (i) accommodation owned by that member This is a potential problem area, but note section 3.30(2) avoids most of the UK problems:      No principal component of any mortgage payment or any capital improvement to premises may be claimed under this clause. So an MP can only claim the interest on their property. The maximum is again $24,000 a year, so if interest is at say 8%, then the maximum will be claimed if the principal is $300,000 or more. This option does provide some potential benefits to the MP. MPs can maximise benefits from this situation, so that the taxpayer pays the maximum$24,000. Let us say the MP buys two $500,000 houses with $600,000 of equity and $400,000 from the bank. House A is in Wellington and House B in the electorate. Normally you may have House A and House B both with $300,000 of equity and $200,000 of mortgage. However at 8% interest it means the MP can only claim $16,000 from the taxpayer for House A. So the smart MP arranges their finances so that House A is $200,000 equity and $300,000 mortgage and House B is
... read more »

In any event, National is not obliged to follow Helen Clark's dictates in this regard, especially noting that even if she represented a Wellington electorate she would have no doubt moved into Premier House sold her own house and invested elsewhere.  In this regard it is also worth noting that she apparently tried to 'swing' free accommodation in New York, despite her UN job conditions requiring her to meet housing costs from her salary. Cite for this peterwn?   Yes, Kiwis in the know in New Youk via Kiwiblog or Whaleoil.  If you doubt the reliability of these blogs, you provide the rebuttal. I saw a _link_ on google once that rebuts your assertion, if you don't believe me you go find it.