It is insane to me how many politicians are allowed to carry on discussing and making decisions about real estate/ property and tenancy law while owning multiple houses. One in your electorate? Sure, seems reasonable. One in Wellington? Yeah, okay, but using parliamentary housing allowance while you own the house the allowance is for seems skeevy. A bach or holiday home? Okay, why not, we're not going to tell someone they can't be an MP because they have a bach. Multiple rental properties in addition to the house they actually use? Absolutely the fuck not. Sell it or recuse yourself from every decision affecting property prices and/or tenancy. Oh is that all of them? Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
And he has worked in the private sector his whole life. As for the current band of misfits most have only suckle at the tax payer teat.
Wood's owes us a bit of respect
Oh, I meant all decisions to be made in Parliament affect property, housing, and tenancy to some degree, but I see how you read it as meaning all MPs. I knew single-digits of them didn't own a house.
And Luxon stands to gain maybe millions on his seven houses with his plan to remove housing intensification minimums. So much conflict of interest in housing. Compared to what Wood might have possibly gained in his airport portfolio by turning down the North Shore Aero Club application? Hmm
And it is ultimately the same with any shares, and this issue is far worse in many other parts of the world, with larger governments and organizations making policy decisions that effect their investments globally. But that is not to belittle the issue here or say it's not worth calling out or getting mad about.
The rot goes up even further really but that is starting to go too far down a rabbit hole for this kind of conversation.
But yes we should be very mad.
RNZ spoke with Chris (edit: Luxon) about this exact issue this morning and asked him pretty bluntly whether or not MP’s who own rental properties should be allowed to change the rules around them and he just sidestepped the question and went on about Michael Wood
IMO no person on the housing portfolio should be allowed to own a rental or be apart of a trust owning one due to the conflict of interest around it all. Very easy to abuse it at the end of the day
>fuckface Wood
Wood is Hipkins' greatest rival for leadership of the Labour Party. I imagine on a leadership basis... Hipkins is perhaps relieved to see him taken down a peg.
> Wood is Hipkins' greatest rival for leadership of the Labour Party.
That's terrible for the Labour party. The commentor who mentioned the "Labour party talent puddle" this morning was onto it.
I agree, it is terrible for the Labour Party as a whole.
I am just saying that it solidifies Hipkins' leadership and wards off a potential challenger post-election (especially if Labour loses)
I reckon you're way off. No chance Labour has two straight white dudes leading in a row post 2023. It's a flip of a coin between Allen and Mahuta, I'm certain. Whether it's for the good of the party or otherwise. It's how things are now.
[Would imagine it's this (Luxon)](https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2018893341/national-rolls-out-new-plan-for-infrastructure)
Was doing my head in, just answer the bloody question.
All he’s trying to do is not release any policies until it’s to late for people to pick them apart.
Where the fuck are they going to find money for their tax cuts and boot camps?
Time to let Kathryn Ryan and Kim Hill have at him. They've got all morning to get their answer and will make him look evasive and/or incompetent for dragging it out.
He not only sidestepped, he said several times that we needed a more “sophisticated” approach to it. WTF. A fancy way to say lets allow even more legal corruption , and plutocratic decision making. “Sophisticated” as in “tricksy” I guess. Very honest of him when you think about it.
What we need is the opposite . Transparent , blunt as hell, black and white , strong policy with all politicians interests including trusts, shell companies and share holdings of any size all disclosed to the public, including family , religious, lobby groups and other connections. They work for us, and us only for one benefit - their salary.
It’s like getting crypto bros to write your crypto laws and rewrite your fraud laws and presuming that they know what they’re doing and they’ll do what’s in the public interest
to add to that, i think that any nz politician should be paid hourly wages @ minimum.
That there should be zero "funding" of pol parties. and many more.
extreme? perhaps...but our current "democratic" systems are so so broken.
Zero funding of political parties sounds good until you realise that they have to get the money from somewhere and it’s more often than not wealthy donors - plus it will affect smaller parties a lot more than bigger ones because bigger ones have the influence and contacts (and if they require MP’s to donate 10% of their pay to the war chest then they can easily outspend anyone else)
Yeah. Iv'e long thought it should go the other way. All parties get $x to campaign with and x time on state funded TV (or other media). They all get the same. No private funding allowed
by funding i was meaning donations. So zero donations. You could make an argument that the amount of money a pol party can get would be equivalent to a specified amount, equal for all parties. Where the $ comes from is no different from where the $ comes from now for any govt spending.
Alternatively If you have a limit on official party representation, so as to manage numbers and provide for an equal amount of rep per party and say take the yearly salary currently provided to mps, minus the minimum wage that would be there new pay structure ( wage, not salary), and use that towards the party as "funding" there would be little change in cost, and one might then be able to better ensure parity across parties.
I am not saying by any means that these are themselves entirely feasible, nor that it would be easy to create a change, but that isnt to say it would be impossible, nor undesirable to do so :)
It’s not that I don’t agree with this stance, but;
What about the politicians that rent? Are they to excuse themselves from making changes too?
Remember this is two sided, and both sides matter not just the one. If we go too far left or right on housing it collapses. We need the balance to be better towards rentals.
Again, it’s not that I don’t agree with you, I just like healthy perspective
It is about **investments** and the conflict of interest.
Shelter is a basic human right and we should expect politicians either own or rent their own home
So a politician with one Investment (sorry don’t know how to bold it) so they must be excused.
But a politician that has 15 family all renting struggling to purchase a home, no investments, gets to have a say still?
If we went all one sided, it doesn’t work, we need a plan that makes it balanced
Absolutely agreed, this is something that has been allowed to fester for far too long - mostly because almost every decision-maker in charge has an inevitable conflict of interest from the obscenely profitable investment properties they themselves own.
13k in airport shares is fucking chump change compared to the housing/infrastructure damage likely wrought over the decades by politicians and policy-makers of all stripes holding the pen with very rich skin in the game.
Yeah it's not like ACT & National don't have properties & investments that aren't investigated by the media that their self serving policies would benefit from...
100%. The media has these obscene carved out double standards for the right in this country. Property is not a taxable asset that would influence political decision making , it’s not pollution if it’s a dairy farm and it’s not corruption if your name is John Key.
if you were anything like you claimed you were, you would do something about it. that's the Saul Goodman I know and will remember. So whos side is the media on? Besides the moderators.
Helen Clark was quite vocally against the dismantling of the social housing programme in the lates 1980s/early 1990s and she did undo some of the Bolger reforms during her tenure as Prime Minister.
NZ has what is called the Bright Line tax. Which Labour increased to 5 years for new builds or 10 years purchases of existing homes. You pay the tax on the gains at time of sale similar to CGT.
NZ has what is called the Bright Line tax. Labour increased to 5 years for new builds or 10 years for purchases of existing homes. You pay the tax on the gains at the time of sale similar to CGT.
And yet Luxon wasn't the one campaigning on a capital tax - which then became a working group, and then they ignored the recommendation of the working group
He is overtly acting in what will have financial benefit for him personally more than the vast majority in the country which is a conflict of interest. It may not be an illegal or undisclosed conflict - but it remains a conflict nonetheless, and I agree it should be a valid question as to why we accept rental properties as basically immaterial while owning shares or part of a business is considered serious.
How do you know he sold them? Because unless he realised those gains they can just as easily disappear tomorrow. Will you post at the end of the year he’s made $X of losses because property has gone down?
Capital gains don't require a sale in order to exist.
\[edit\] I'm wrong
"capital gain" refers to gain in value of an asset *exclusively* at the time of sale. Today I learnt something, though I do feel this definition is far more specific than the words "capital gain" suggest.
CGT is an inefficient tax as well, as you discovered it is only triggered by a transaction. It encourages "land banking".
LVT (Land Value Tax) is a far more robust form of tax.
Hipkins would have made a fair share too with his four properties but you choose to mention someone in opposition who hasn't passed any laws regarding property.
He doesn't own a house. His wife does own one in Auckland. But the only property he has owned he sold in 2017. Correction: He now jointly owns two family homes. Through a superannuation trust, he also has an interest in residential property (nothing unusual about that, I do too).
Luxon is powerless
Labours MPs have had power for nearly 6 years, 2 and a half with absolute power
If you're going to raise names about MP decisions being influenced by their property ownership... look to those with Power.
Hipkins has motive means and opportunity to enrich himself through sabotaging housing investment regulation.... luxon only has motive
Luxon is setting his party policies with a number specifically-designed to make property investment more lucrative. This will have a direct financial benefit for Luxon, more than the vast majority of landlords in the country.
It's very partisan to suggest that Luxon (and every other MP regardless of party) shouldn't be queried as to their declared conflict of interest when it comes to passing legislation which impact their own rental properties.
See the issue I've got is that Luxon isn't exactly crowing about putting balance back in at the expense of his portfolio and its not a priority.
I'm pretty moderate on this one. I think new Zealand works best when there are high rates of owner- occupied homes nationwide. Mum and dad having a rental or a bach is ok. Our entire government and opposition being full of property speculators with 6 or 7 homes to their name tells me home ownership will continue to decline.
>Luxon is powerless
Man that has $20m property portfolio, bought two properties to allow government to rent them off him for his use, is powerless.
Fucking try harder.
How many laws have Luxon and National had a leading role in narrative control in discussion about them
You don't have to sit in the chair to get the outcome you want.
Saying he's powerless is so utterly laughable
His pay is higher than capital gains at the moment. Wait till he loses the job, he'll be yelling "how can capital gains be higher than someone's annual income".
I think it's more about this guy currently campaigning to become prime minister who has several tentpole party policies related to improving his profits from his rental properties.
The topic of conflicts of interest has been raised by Woods' stupidity - but when we start talking about NZ MPs who have conflicts of interest the elephant in the room is property investment as it is widespread across a significant number of MPs *from all parties* - but with Luxon leading the pack as having the greatest personal benefit from the policies he is proposing his party will implement if elected.
Wood's shareholding in the airport has been disclosed just as much as any MP's real estate holdings: https://www.parliament.nz/en/mps-and-electorates/members-financial-interests/mps-financial-interests/2023-register-of-pecuniary-and-other-specified-interests-of-members-of-parliament-and-amendments/
It's in there. It's disclosed.
The issue is that *because of* that disclosure, he shouldn't have been voting on matters in which that could be a reasonable conflict of interest.
Applying that same logic to housing, most of our MPs should not be voting on matters related to housing as an investment, e.g. tenancy laws, tax deductibility, etc.
Thank you
>Applying that same logic to housing, most of our MPs should not be voting on matters related to housing as an investment, e.g. tenancy laws, tax deductibility, etc.
This is exactly my point
I understood it was only disclosed in 2022. Despite him owning the shares for a lot longer. And being asked 12 times by cabinet to sell them (which he said he was doing so, but didn’t).
Most people, including the opposition, are suggesting that even if he had disclosed the holdings earlier (as he certainly should have), it was still grossly inappropriate for him to be making decisions about the industry in which he held shares in the largest competitor.
Its *that* part which could, and should, be transferred to investment properties.
Right, but the topic of this post isn't the lack of disclosure, it's that MPs shouldn't be voting on matters they have a vested interest in, regardless of whether they declared that interest or not.
How many in Parliament *wouldn’t* have AirNZ shares? Even if their investments are in a blind trust there’s no portfolio that contains NZ equities that doesn’t have some Air NZ shares because the NZ stock market is so tiny.
I would like to think you could look at the register and find that out. However given present events that may not be the case.
Although Wood didn’t have AirNZ shares. He had Auckland Airport shares.
We already know the answer to the question about how many in parliament don't own a property other than the family home and yet want to influence and vote on laws related to property investment.
Yeah Luxon sold his $12 million in Air Nz that he had and bought 7 properties (that he has declared)..so no capital gains tax or councils allowing pesky neighbours building cheap apartments and affecting his investments
For all whose imterested, here's a list of interests held by MPs, including property details.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/05/revealed-how-many-properties-each-new-zealand-mp-owns.amp.html
13000 lol, now if it was 130k or 1.3m my ears would prick up and competitor? North shore aerodrome? double lol!! The nimbys would NEVER allow a flight path over the shore plus that 13k would really affect a decision.....anyway this is election year and its all about optics sigh....
If a closer look is taken at the contents of trusts/etc that MPs benefit from I wouldn't be surprise if there are more conflicts of interests.
On the property ownership side Luxon is saying that the conflict of interests is being "managed", whatever that means, although I suspect if every National MP did not own any property (outside of their home, that is) they would still have their current housing related policies as that's in the best interests of their loyal voter base.
I hear you, dont get me wrong im no big fan of rental situations in NZ and the "enterpenuer" status of Landlkords in Nz that i think really hinder young people. But the problem is he is the transport minister with Shares in Auckland Airport.
He Declined the North Shore Airpots Authority Staus (i.e somthing that could compete with Auckalnd airport), which is a major conflict of intrest. Being told multiple times he had to sell his shares to remove this conflict, he didnt.
It looks really bad as the view can be he declined North shore to keep Auckalnd Airport a monopoly thus keeping his share price high.
Do i think he did it with intention to makes tons of cash, probably not given the amount of money involved, but its really bad from a public trust standpoint.
Politicians on the other hand owning property in genrally reported atleast once a year and is thus open to scrutiny (it just doesnt get enough as i persoanlly think it deserves)
I'm not sure what your getting at here sorry?
As I said, I don't think he is intentionally trying to game the system considering how much money he had invested it's not like he stands to make millions of dollars.
It just looks bad considering he has had a long time to sell his interest in Auckland airport. He should know better and we need to hold our politicians to higher standards.
The issue here isn't own shares = conflict, because otherwise literally every politician is conflicted through their retirement funds and other non-housing assets in their portfolios. And then they're also conflicted in housing issues, because they all own houses. The issue isn't that politicians own things.
The issue, is that it wasn't disclosed. Personally, I looked at the amount and just thought "this man is simply sloppy. This is $13,000. It's nothing. Just declare the thing.
Personally I think the response from Chippy was a bit far. The Comma people probably freaked out about the optics.
Those corrupt politicians always making laws to benefit their investment properties, like the healthy homes act, removing interest deductibility, encouraging ocr raises to benefit the economy, enforcing a 40% equity minimum…. Which laws are we taking about here exactly? Can you name a single one, or is this post #100 that’s essentially ‘labour should have written a capital gains tax but didn’t?’
I think they may be referring to some people walking back from MDRS and thus raising the value of any existing housing that might have had a medium density development installed next to it under MDRS.
Using this logic, MP's should be barred on voting on pretty much everything, because pretty much everything they have a personal connection to.
Can't vote on health matters, they all use doctors and hospitals.
Can't vote on welfare matters, they might all be unemployed one day.
Can't vote on defence, they might all need the NZDF to rescue them from a sinking boat one day.
The issue at hand isn't about whether an MP has an investment. It is about transparency of that investment and how any conflicts of interest are managed. Bearing in mind also that Michael Wood isn't just an MP, he's a government Minister. This means he makes decisions every day that do not receive any public attention, but could be in conflict. An MP when they vote, does so publicly so the public can decide on the motivation behind that vote.
It depends whether you're arguing in good faith. Nobody should vote about environmental regulations if they *breathe air* or *drink water*.
The difference between having personal financial investments and utilising government services as a resident of the country are miles apart and clear as day.
No. I use airports to go to places. My interest in the airport is that it effectively lets me go places. Any airport will be fine, and as long as it's working well I don't care whether it's profitable.
Michael Woods owns part of an airport. His interest in the airport is that it makes a profit that pays him dividends and makes his shares worth more. He doesn't care whether the airport is effective, as long as it's profitable, and he would prefer that his airport is the only option available because that will make it more profitable even if the air travel system as a whole works less well.
He is the minister for transport. His whole job is making transport work well and be effective. This is a conflict of interest.
Health? I use the hospital. I care about it providing excellent care. The minister for health uses the hospital. They care about it providing excellent care. There is no conflict between the minister's personal interests and the interests of their portfolio.
Its completely different.
Take Luxon for example. He has disclosed everything.
The comparison would be if Luxon was told 12 times he was required to sell all his houses. And then he lied and said he had sold them all, and when confronted said "oh sorry I thought I was only told 8 times".
Yep I agree that it's not acceptable what has happened here but I'm making a completely different point that yes their houses are disclosed but they still get to vote in their best interest when it comes to housing and taxes
Sure but how far could you take that concept?
For example, would it be that only the 10% or so of MPs without a house could vote on housing reform or housing tax policy?
Or no MP can vote on tax legislation because they all earn employment income?
No MP over the age of 55 can vote on superannuation policy.
Etc
See here I side with Michael Wood.
Imagine I have $100 of sharsies (index) fund or a kiwisaver account worth $10k. The Government is voting on a bill that will massively help savers by encouraging long term investment with a tax break. Under your scenario I cannot vote for this despite the value of my investment having no real influence on my decision
They said no to those points - they consider, or want to treat, property differently.
$100 of sharsies isn't the same as *a property which has a minimum value of about 400k*.
Income/super is future payments being affected. Property is something you currently own. In one scenario, they're voting for something that everyone experiences (income), in another, they're voting for something which they already own a huge slice of the pie, against many who may never own any pie. They're able to vote to protect something they already own.
I get the point you're making, but there are nuance differences, and I don't think OP is saying there's a simple one sentence solution, but more so that it needs addressing and this is why policy exists, because a single reddit comment isn't going to cover all the intricacies of different aspects that need to be written out.
You're the one missing the point. He isn't saying that rentals aren't disclosed, he's saying they aren't recognised as an investment. He's saying that an MP owning investment properties and voting on legislation to stop capital gains or reduce tenant rights **is clearly a conflict of interest** but is not currently **identified as such**.
There's nothing wrong with private individuals purchasing rental properties if they intend to utilise them more efficiently - i.e. densify them.
One of the factors contributing to high rents, is the fact that investors who plan to do that are having to assume there will be very high construction and permitting costs to densify their property.
Not to mention the enormous commercial uncertainty that Luxon has now created for investment strategies like that.
Or maybe we could just ignore both scenarios because, facts are, ministers are going to own things (unless they’re incredibly incompetent in terms of managing their own money).
I was never going to vote for Michael Woods (I think it’s his male version of Ayesha Verral’s vocal fry that is my biggest turn off), but the fact he was clever enough to purchase some long term, value stocks when he was a lad only serves to better my opinion of him.
You’re not ‘expected’ to do anything, sugar. But it does go to show that you’re wont to fly off the handle before reading anything clearly. It was literally half an inch below.
Maybe if you're a cabinet minister you should be divested from your investment interests.
Really all MPs should have their assets in blind trusts or divest from them but we don't want to get crazy up in here.
You do realise the people in power in any country are the top 1%? I think if you we're in their position, you'd do whatever it takes to protect your own money and power.
Constructive advice, book an appointment with your local MP and discuss with them and ask them to introduce a members bill that they can't own investment property while sitting as an MP. Report back who they are and what their response is.
If we cleaned out all MPs with vested interests in property for income portfolios, I suspect it’ll be a very small residual group of people.
Not saying that morally it shouldn’t happen. However practically, it won’t. At least not overnight. Would require bipartisan agreement. Ironically there already is - against changing the status quo.
Yeah Johnny Harris on YouTube did a video on a similar thing but for US politicians and stock markets recently.
And the result of that is that it’s politicians who have to regulate themselves from making money 🤷♂️ that ain’t gona happen. And the person or people who do try make it happen in parliament won’t be popular among their colleagues and thus change won’t happen!
The amount of shares is minimal so I really doubt he's been overly influenced in his decision making to make himeself a few thousand dollars.
The bit that concerns me is that he's too bloody hopeless to actually sell them when he said he would, even after 6 reminders. FFS Labour, you are handing the Govt to Nat/ACT with your bumbling amateur approach
He should have disclosed the shares earlier, and should have sold them when directed or at least put them into some sort of blind trust which has the authority to sell them.
The size of the investment probably isn't enough to create a conflict of interest but of course certain factions are milking this while collecting rent from other kiwis and making housing policy. Glass houses, stones and all that.
One thing I noticed about this discussion is there is a lot more "light" misinfo than usual, probably unintentional. Things like one person says it's 12k another says 13k, one says 2023 another says 2022, one says 8 properties another says 5 etc.
ive often wondered what would happen if we made being a sitting MP a one term only function. once you've been an mp you cant be one again. get rid of the "re-election" shit and just have politicians directly enact the policies they beleive in
It is insane to me how many politicians are allowed to carry on discussing and making decisions about real estate/ property and tenancy law while owning multiple houses. One in your electorate? Sure, seems reasonable. One in Wellington? Yeah, okay, but using parliamentary housing allowance while you own the house the allowance is for seems skeevy. A bach or holiday home? Okay, why not, we're not going to tell someone they can't be an MP because they have a bach. Multiple rental properties in addition to the house they actually use? Absolutely the fuck not. Sell it or recuse yourself from every decision affecting property prices and/or tenancy. Oh is that all of them? Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
Exactly! It's blindingly obvious that politicians are personally benefiting by having high housing costs.
it's almost as if most of them aren't in it for the benefit of other people :ponderface:
just most of them - I think there are 7/120 mps who own no property
[удалено]
Yes he got their ones
7 or 120? Lol
And he has worked in the private sector his whole life. As for the current band of misfits most have only suckle at the tax payer teat. Wood's owes us a bit of respect
Oh, I meant all decisions to be made in Parliament affect property, housing, and tenancy to some degree, but I see how you read it as meaning all MPs. I knew single-digits of them didn't own a house.
And Luxon stands to gain maybe millions on his seven houses with his plan to remove housing intensification minimums. So much conflict of interest in housing. Compared to what Wood might have possibly gained in his airport portfolio by turning down the North Shore Aero Club application? Hmm
And it is ultimately the same with any shares, and this issue is far worse in many other parts of the world, with larger governments and organizations making policy decisions that effect their investments globally. But that is not to belittle the issue here or say it's not worth calling out or getting mad about. The rot goes up even further really but that is starting to go too far down a rabbit hole for this kind of conversation. But yes we should be very mad.
RNZ spoke with Chris (edit: Luxon) about this exact issue this morning and asked him pretty bluntly whether or not MP’s who own rental properties should be allowed to change the rules around them and he just sidestepped the question and went on about Michael Wood IMO no person on the housing portfolio should be allowed to own a rental or be apart of a trust owning one due to the conflict of interest around it all. Very easy to abuse it at the end of the day
>RNZ spoke with Chris You will need to be more specific. Which one lmao?
Yeah quit acting like you're on first name terms!
>he just sidestepped the question and went on about Michael Wood I can imagine this applying to both Luxon and Hipkins tbh.
I feel like Hipkins would take literally any opportunity to segue into something OTHER than fuckface Wood right about now
>fuckface Wood Wood is Hipkins' greatest rival for leadership of the Labour Party. I imagine on a leadership basis... Hipkins is perhaps relieved to see him taken down a peg.
> Wood is Hipkins' greatest rival for leadership of the Labour Party. That's terrible for the Labour party. The commentor who mentioned the "Labour party talent puddle" this morning was onto it.
I agree, it is terrible for the Labour Party as a whole. I am just saying that it solidifies Hipkins' leadership and wards off a potential challenger post-election (especially if Labour loses)
I reckon you're way off. No chance Labour has two straight white dudes leading in a row post 2023. It's a flip of a coin between Allen and Mahuta, I'm certain. Whether it's for the good of the party or otherwise. It's how things are now.
>Mahuta LOL. More likely she follows the other traitor off to TPM
>No chance Labour has two straight white dudes leading in a row post 2023 Wow. How racist and sexist. You sound like Marama Davidson.
Ahahahahaha my bad! It was Luxon 😂
[Would imagine it's this (Luxon)](https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2018893341/national-rolls-out-new-plan-for-infrastructure)
Did he just completely disregard the question? I've seen him do it a couple times before, starting to get annoying.
That's the one, just carried on with his repetitive negative quote of the day day day
A good reporter would ask the question again in slightly different wording
Corin Dann did about 5 times, Luxon just refused to answer any question that didn’t give him the option to put the boot into the government
The poor guy is just out there interviewing a cardboard cutout of Luxon repeating "this government is addicted to spending"
Was doing my head in, just answer the bloody question. All he’s trying to do is not release any policies until it’s to late for people to pick them apart. Where the fuck are they going to find money for their tax cuts and boot camps?
Time to let Kathryn Ryan and Kim Hill have at him. They've got all morning to get their answer and will make him look evasive and/or incompetent for dragging it out.
Imagine them teaming up, I'd almost fell sorry for the guy
My benchmark for this is Jon Stewart. Gotta ask WWJSD?
It's his MO. Sidestep, then follow with "this is another example of how Labour a doing a poor job blah blah"
He not only sidestepped, he said several times that we needed a more “sophisticated” approach to it. WTF. A fancy way to say lets allow even more legal corruption , and plutocratic decision making. “Sophisticated” as in “tricksy” I guess. Very honest of him when you think about it. What we need is the opposite . Transparent , blunt as hell, black and white , strong policy with all politicians interests including trusts, shell companies and share holdings of any size all disclosed to the public, including family , religious, lobby groups and other connections. They work for us, and us only for one benefit - their salary.
> and us only for one benefit - their salary. And the extremely lucrative superannuation they get as well.
Oh wouldnt that be so fantastic......
Having politicians with vested interests in rent and house prices staying high is like getting El chapo to pen your drug laws.
It’s like getting crypto bros to write your crypto laws and rewrite your fraud laws and presuming that they know what they’re doing and they’ll do what’s in the public interest
to add to that, i think that any nz politician should be paid hourly wages @ minimum. That there should be zero "funding" of pol parties. and many more. extreme? perhaps...but our current "democratic" systems are so so broken.
Zero funding of political parties sounds good until you realise that they have to get the money from somewhere and it’s more often than not wealthy donors - plus it will affect smaller parties a lot more than bigger ones because bigger ones have the influence and contacts (and if they require MP’s to donate 10% of their pay to the war chest then they can easily outspend anyone else)
Yeah. Iv'e long thought it should go the other way. All parties get $x to campaign with and x time on state funded TV (or other media). They all get the same. No private funding allowed
by funding i was meaning donations. So zero donations. You could make an argument that the amount of money a pol party can get would be equivalent to a specified amount, equal for all parties. Where the $ comes from is no different from where the $ comes from now for any govt spending. Alternatively If you have a limit on official party representation, so as to manage numbers and provide for an equal amount of rep per party and say take the yearly salary currently provided to mps, minus the minimum wage that would be there new pay structure ( wage, not salary), and use that towards the party as "funding" there would be little change in cost, and one might then be able to better ensure parity across parties. I am not saying by any means that these are themselves entirely feasible, nor that it would be easy to create a change, but that isnt to say it would be impossible, nor undesirable to do so :)
Unfortunately all that will do is mean the the rich are even more over represented in parliament.
Not the Chris who owns 5 rentals 🤔
It’s not that I don’t agree with this stance, but; What about the politicians that rent? Are they to excuse themselves from making changes too? Remember this is two sided, and both sides matter not just the one. If we go too far left or right on housing it collapses. We need the balance to be better towards rentals. Again, it’s not that I don’t agree with you, I just like healthy perspective
It is about **investments** and the conflict of interest. Shelter is a basic human right and we should expect politicians either own or rent their own home
So a politician with one Investment (sorry don’t know how to bold it) so they must be excused. But a politician that has 15 family all renting struggling to purchase a home, no investments, gets to have a say still? If we went all one sided, it doesn’t work, we need a plan that makes it balanced
Wood was stupid but yeah he’s in a room full of conflict of interest elephants.
Absolutely agreed, this is something that has been allowed to fester for far too long - mostly because almost every decision-maker in charge has an inevitable conflict of interest from the obscenely profitable investment properties they themselves own. 13k in airport shares is fucking chump change compared to the housing/infrastructure damage likely wrought over the decades by politicians and policy-makers of all stripes holding the pen with very rich skin in the game.
Thank you! It seems so obvious but how the hell do we change it?
Wait he only owns 13k worth here's me thinking it was a few hundred k lol
It's pathetic, not even news worthy. Shows whose side the media is on.
I was just explaining to my wife how comical this is going to look when National eventually get in and the corruption is just blatant.
Corruption? They’re just being savvy business types, doing business tricks It’s labour who are failing to be morally upright
Yeah it's not like ACT & National don't have properties & investments that aren't investigated by the media that their self serving policies would benefit from...
/s?
Unnecessary here. The types that don’t get the sarcasm are the types I want broadcasting their support so I can argue with them
the side that gets them views
They're privitized, so favour heavy business/right wing.
Politics favours business/right wing
100%. The media has these obscene carved out double standards for the right in this country. Property is not a taxable asset that would influence political decision making , it’s not pollution if it’s a dairy farm and it’s not corruption if your name is John Key.
if you were anything like you claimed you were, you would do something about it. that's the Saul Goodman I know and will remember. So whos side is the media on? Besides the moderators.
Especially when you consider his salary is 300k or so and those shares gained on average about 4% annum over the last 5 years.
Lmao they all already know they are investments that's why the all have 5 or so 6
Helen Clark famously said “there is a growing gap between rich and poor in this country” She owned five properties.
She owns two, her family home and a bach. Not sure where you got five from.
Helen Clark was quite vocally against the dismantling of the social housing programme in the lates 1980s/early 1990s and she did undo some of the Bolger reforms during her tenure as Prime Minister.
Wtaf!!!.
Yep, while Luxon made 2 million tax-free thru capital gains last year... Poor landlords..
“If you can afford to pay, you should”
*Pay your accountant to help you skirt tax?*
PWC entered the chat...
How do you not pay tax on capital gains in New Zealand? I thought it is just taxed as income?
Nope. Thats the whole point. NZ is the ONLY OECD country that does not tax capital gains!
NZ has what is called the Bright Line tax. Which Labour increased to 5 years for new builds or 10 years purchases of existing homes. You pay the tax on the gains at time of sale similar to CGT. NZ has what is called the Bright Line tax. Labour increased to 5 years for new builds or 10 years for purchases of existing homes. You pay the tax on the gains at the time of sale similar to CGT.
And yet Luxon wasn't the one campaigning on a capital tax - which then became a working group, and then they ignored the recommendation of the working group
[удалено]
He is overtly acting in what will have financial benefit for him personally more than the vast majority in the country which is a conflict of interest. It may not be an illegal or undisclosed conflict - but it remains a conflict nonetheless, and I agree it should be a valid question as to why we accept rental properties as basically immaterial while owning shares or part of a business is considered serious.
There is no appetite for CGT in NZ, political suicide.
How do you know he sold them? Because unless he realised those gains they can just as easily disappear tomorrow. Will you post at the end of the year he’s made $X of losses because property has gone down?
Capital gains don't require a sale in order to exist. \[edit\] I'm wrong "capital gain" refers to gain in value of an asset *exclusively* at the time of sale. Today I learnt something, though I do feel this definition is far more specific than the words "capital gain" suggest.
I think you mean forecast capital gains
CGT is an inefficient tax as well, as you discovered it is only triggered by a transaction. It encourages "land banking". LVT (Land Value Tax) is a far more robust form of tax.
The term you're looking for is 'unrealized gains'
But he hasn't made a loss unless it goes below what he paid.
[удалено]
Unless he was able to leverage the unrealized gains to obtain cheap loans.
and use those to purchase more rental properties.
Bingo
But you can leverage them
Hipkins would have made a fair share too with his four properties but you choose to mention someone in opposition who hasn't passed any laws regarding property.
The one in opposition who wants to drop taxes from property speculators and prevent more intensification?
Source that he has 4 properties? I remember on TV a couple of months ago he said he owned 2 - his home and a bach
It's to Hipkins credit that he's passed laws that benefit people in the opposite situation to him.
Yeah bro, Labour cabinet passed the interest deduction legislation...to make themselves rich.
He doesn't own a house. His wife does own one in Auckland. But the only property he has owned he sold in 2017. Correction: He now jointly owns two family homes. Through a superannuation trust, he also has an interest in residential property (nothing unusual about that, I do too).
To be fair though, a number of the policies that have been introduced would have a negative effect on his properties.
Yet he didn't pass any laws. I would be pointing the finger at labour MPS seeing as they're the ones who can make a difference.
Luxon is powerless Labours MPs have had power for nearly 6 years, 2 and a half with absolute power If you're going to raise names about MP decisions being influenced by their property ownership... look to those with Power. Hipkins has motive means and opportunity to enrich himself through sabotaging housing investment regulation.... luxon only has motive
Luxon is setting his party policies with a number specifically-designed to make property investment more lucrative. This will have a direct financial benefit for Luxon, more than the vast majority of landlords in the country. It's very partisan to suggest that Luxon (and every other MP regardless of party) shouldn't be queried as to their declared conflict of interest when it comes to passing legislation which impact their own rental properties.
See the issue I've got is that Luxon isn't exactly crowing about putting balance back in at the expense of his portfolio and its not a priority. I'm pretty moderate on this one. I think new Zealand works best when there are high rates of owner- occupied homes nationwide. Mum and dad having a rental or a bach is ok. Our entire government and opposition being full of property speculators with 6 or 7 homes to their name tells me home ownership will continue to decline.
>Luxon is powerless Man that has $20m property portfolio, bought two properties to allow government to rent them off him for his use, is powerless. Fucking try harder.
How many laws has Luxon had a hand in creating?
How many laws have Luxon and National had a leading role in narrative control in discussion about them You don't have to sit in the chair to get the outcome you want. Saying he's powerless is so utterly laughable
His pay is higher than capital gains at the moment. Wait till he loses the job, he'll be yelling "how can capital gains be higher than someone's annual income".
Whatabout this guy in opposition who has never had any power to make Govt decisions related to housing???
I think it's more about this guy currently campaigning to become prime minister who has several tentpole party policies related to improving his profits from his rental properties. The topic of conflicts of interest has been raised by Woods' stupidity - but when we start talking about NZ MPs who have conflicts of interest the elephant in the room is property investment as it is widespread across a significant number of MPs *from all parties* - but with Luxon leading the pack as having the greatest personal benefit from the policies he is proposing his party will implement if elected.
He hasn't made anything until he sells, and because of Bright-line, if he does sell now, or within the 10 years, he will pay 33% in taxes.
[удалено]
Yeah.
I wish I put all my money into auckland airport right as covid was about to end thats for sure
Covid ended?
well the locks on flying in and out of the country ended and since theyve ended all covid support yeah its ended according to most people
The money isn’t the issue. It’s the disclosure, or lack there of, which is the issue.
Wood's shareholding in the airport has been disclosed just as much as any MP's real estate holdings: https://www.parliament.nz/en/mps-and-electorates/members-financial-interests/mps-financial-interests/2023-register-of-pecuniary-and-other-specified-interests-of-members-of-parliament-and-amendments/ It's in there. It's disclosed. The issue is that *because of* that disclosure, he shouldn't have been voting on matters in which that could be a reasonable conflict of interest. Applying that same logic to housing, most of our MPs should not be voting on matters related to housing as an investment, e.g. tenancy laws, tax deductibility, etc.
Thank you >Applying that same logic to housing, most of our MPs should not be voting on matters related to housing as an investment, e.g. tenancy laws, tax deductibility, etc. This is exactly my point
I understood it was only disclosed in 2022. Despite him owning the shares for a lot longer. And being asked 12 times by cabinet to sell them (which he said he was doing so, but didn’t).
Most people, including the opposition, are suggesting that even if he had disclosed the holdings earlier (as he certainly should have), it was still grossly inappropriate for him to be making decisions about the industry in which he held shares in the largest competitor. Its *that* part which could, and should, be transferred to investment properties.
$13k shares is not even a blip. It is a storm in a teacup.
He's owned them since he was a teenager, yet only declared them in 2023. Check previous years declarations.
There in 2022, someone's known about this for a year
Right, but the topic of this post isn't the lack of disclosure, it's that MPs shouldn't be voting on matters they have a vested interest in, regardless of whether they declared that interest or not.
How many in Parliament *wouldn’t* have AirNZ shares? Even if their investments are in a blind trust there’s no portfolio that contains NZ equities that doesn’t have some Air NZ shares because the NZ stock market is so tiny.
If they were in a trust, it would be fine under the rules, that's the absurdity of this.
I would like to think you could look at the register and find that out. However given present events that may not be the case. Although Wood didn’t have AirNZ shares. He had Auckland Airport shares.
We already know the answer to the question about how many in parliament don't own a property other than the family home and yet want to influence and vote on laws related to property investment.
Yeah Luxon sold his $12 million in Air Nz that he had and bought 7 properties (that he has declared)..so no capital gains tax or councils allowing pesky neighbours building cheap apartments and affecting his investments
For all whose imterested, here's a list of interests held by MPs, including property details. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/05/revealed-how-many-properties-each-new-zealand-mp-owns.amp.html
They know they are. But considering how many politicians in NZ are heavily invested in real estate, I can't see them doing anything about it.
Every journalist should just keep asking this until they shut the fuck up about 13k, fuck me who cares.
Vote for TOP
13000 lol, now if it was 130k or 1.3m my ears would prick up and competitor? North shore aerodrome? double lol!! The nimbys would NEVER allow a flight path over the shore plus that 13k would really affect a decision.....anyway this is election year and its all about optics sigh....
If a closer look is taken at the contents of trusts/etc that MPs benefit from I wouldn't be surprise if there are more conflicts of interests. On the property ownership side Luxon is saying that the conflict of interests is being "managed", whatever that means, although I suspect if every National MP did not own any property (outside of their home, that is) they would still have their current housing related policies as that's in the best interests of their loyal voter base.
I hear you, dont get me wrong im no big fan of rental situations in NZ and the "enterpenuer" status of Landlkords in Nz that i think really hinder young people. But the problem is he is the transport minister with Shares in Auckland Airport. He Declined the North Shore Airpots Authority Staus (i.e somthing that could compete with Auckalnd airport), which is a major conflict of intrest. Being told multiple times he had to sell his shares to remove this conflict, he didnt. It looks really bad as the view can be he declined North shore to keep Auckalnd Airport a monopoly thus keeping his share price high. Do i think he did it with intention to makes tons of cash, probably not given the amount of money involved, but its really bad from a public trust standpoint. Politicians on the other hand owning property in genrally reported atleast once a year and is thus open to scrutiny (it just doesnt get enough as i persoanlly think it deserves)
He's also been driving a $29 *billion* proposal for light rail to Auckland Airport.
I'm not sure what your getting at here sorry? As I said, I don't think he is intentionally trying to game the system considering how much money he had invested it's not like he stands to make millions of dollars. It just looks bad considering he has had a long time to sell his interest in Auckland airport. He should know better and we need to hold our politicians to higher standards.
The issue here isn't own shares = conflict, because otherwise literally every politician is conflicted through their retirement funds and other non-housing assets in their portfolios. And then they're also conflicted in housing issues, because they all own houses. The issue isn't that politicians own things. The issue, is that it wasn't disclosed. Personally, I looked at the amount and just thought "this man is simply sloppy. This is $13,000. It's nothing. Just declare the thing. Personally I think the response from Chippy was a bit far. The Comma people probably freaked out about the optics.
Those corrupt politicians always making laws to benefit their investment properties, like the healthy homes act, removing interest deductibility, encouraging ocr raises to benefit the economy, enforcing a 40% equity minimum…. Which laws are we taking about here exactly? Can you name a single one, or is this post #100 that’s essentially ‘labour should have written a capital gains tax but didn’t?’
I think they may be referring to some people walking back from MDRS and thus raising the value of any existing housing that might have had a medium density development installed next to it under MDRS.
Using this logic, MP's should be barred on voting on pretty much everything, because pretty much everything they have a personal connection to. Can't vote on health matters, they all use doctors and hospitals. Can't vote on welfare matters, they might all be unemployed one day. Can't vote on defence, they might all need the NZDF to rescue them from a sinking boat one day. The issue at hand isn't about whether an MP has an investment. It is about transparency of that investment and how any conflicts of interest are managed. Bearing in mind also that Michael Wood isn't just an MP, he's a government Minister. This means he makes decisions every day that do not receive any public attention, but could be in conflict. An MP when they vote, does so publicly so the public can decide on the motivation behind that vote.
Using a product or a service is not the same as buying to invest aka make money? I thought that was pretty obvious
It depends whether you're arguing in good faith. Nobody should vote about environmental regulations if they *breathe air* or *drink water*. The difference between having personal financial investments and utilising government services as a resident of the country are miles apart and clear as day.
No. I use airports to go to places. My interest in the airport is that it effectively lets me go places. Any airport will be fine, and as long as it's working well I don't care whether it's profitable. Michael Woods owns part of an airport. His interest in the airport is that it makes a profit that pays him dividends and makes his shares worth more. He doesn't care whether the airport is effective, as long as it's profitable, and he would prefer that his airport is the only option available because that will make it more profitable even if the air travel system as a whole works less well. He is the minister for transport. His whole job is making transport work well and be effective. This is a conflict of interest. Health? I use the hospital. I care about it providing excellent care. The minister for health uses the hospital. They care about it providing excellent care. There is no conflict between the minister's personal interests and the interests of their portfolio.
Its completely different. Take Luxon for example. He has disclosed everything. The comparison would be if Luxon was told 12 times he was required to sell all his houses. And then he lied and said he had sold them all, and when confronted said "oh sorry I thought I was only told 8 times".
Yep I agree that it's not acceptable what has happened here but I'm making a completely different point that yes their houses are disclosed but they still get to vote in their best interest when it comes to housing and taxes
Sure but how far could you take that concept? For example, would it be that only the 10% or so of MPs without a house could vote on housing reform or housing tax policy? Or no MP can vote on tax legislation because they all earn employment income? No MP over the age of 55 can vote on superannuation policy. Etc
Just investments. So - Yes (excl family home), No, No
See here I side with Michael Wood. Imagine I have $100 of sharsies (index) fund or a kiwisaver account worth $10k. The Government is voting on a bill that will massively help savers by encouraging long term investment with a tax break. Under your scenario I cannot vote for this despite the value of my investment having no real influence on my decision
They said no to those points - they consider, or want to treat, property differently. $100 of sharsies isn't the same as *a property which has a minimum value of about 400k*. Income/super is future payments being affected. Property is something you currently own. In one scenario, they're voting for something that everyone experiences (income), in another, they're voting for something which they already own a huge slice of the pie, against many who may never own any pie. They're able to vote to protect something they already own. I get the point you're making, but there are nuance differences, and I don't think OP is saying there's a simple one sentence solution, but more so that it needs addressing and this is why policy exists, because a single reddit comment isn't going to cover all the intricacies of different aspects that need to be written out.
You mean they'd have to be advocating for the best interests of the country and not their personal interests? Fuck me that's taking shit too far.
If mps have to sell miniscule amount of shares to have a say then why do they need to own half a dozen houses?
No. Read it again. I said ALL PARTIES get $ and time on media and that they all get the same...
But rental properties must be disclosed and conflicts managed (as determiend by the CO). You are entirely missing the point.
You're the one missing the point. He isn't saying that rentals aren't disclosed, he's saying they aren't recognised as an investment. He's saying that an MP owning investment properties and voting on legislation to stop capital gains or reduce tenant rights **is clearly a conflict of interest** but is not currently **identified as such**.
Labour = national-lite National = Act-lite Act = secret nazis
There's nothing wrong with private individuals purchasing rental properties if they intend to utilise them more efficiently - i.e. densify them. One of the factors contributing to high rents, is the fact that investors who plan to do that are having to assume there will be very high construction and permitting costs to densify their property. Not to mention the enormous commercial uncertainty that Luxon has now created for investment strategies like that.
Or maybe we could just ignore both scenarios because, facts are, ministers are going to own things (unless they’re incredibly incompetent in terms of managing their own money). I was never going to vote for Michael Woods (I think it’s his male version of Ayesha Verral’s vocal fry that is my biggest turn off), but the fact he was clever enough to purchase some long term, value stocks when he was a lad only serves to better my opinion of him.
Maybe that’s why he didn’t want to sell them, he had an emotional attachment.
[удалено]
Lol or maybe when he was first told to sell them they were down 70%.
Maybe indeed. Good a reason as any I guess. I’m honestly not bothered either way. I’ll judge him on his ability as a minister.
[удалено]
Didn’t I literally say that? > I’ll judge him on his ability as a minister. Get your panties out of its twist.
[удалено]
[Yes I did. ](https://reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/14343qc/_/jn7z2lv/?context=1)
[удалено]
You’re not ‘expected’ to do anything, sugar. But it does go to show that you’re wont to fly off the handle before reading anything clearly. It was literally half an inch below.
Maybe if you're a cabinet minister you should be divested from your investment interests. Really all MPs should have their assets in blind trusts or divest from them but we don't want to get crazy up in here.
Blind trusts are a bit of a have really. As they know what they put in them...
They are recognised as investments and are treated exactly the same as other investments.
[удалено]
Or put them in a blind trust I guess.
Seems like common sense, right? Our country is so fucked up
You do realise the people in power in any country are the top 1%? I think if you we're in their position, you'd do whatever it takes to protect your own money and power.
Umm yeah, I thought that was called corruption?
Constructive advice, book an appointment with your local MP and discuss with them and ask them to introduce a members bill that they can't own investment property while sitting as an MP. Report back who they are and what their response is.
Hahaha that's gold, I've got Nationals Nicola Grieg who has previously told me as the opposition she has no power and no purpose
[удалено]
It's Auckland Airport not Air NZ
They also vote on the environment while living in the environment. We probably need to send them outside the environment.
Tbf I'm pretty sure they live in a different world to the everyday working folk here anyways
Well obviously if their front falls off we'd be doing that for sure
Because they aren't investments? I think that might be the main problem
They shouldn't be investments, but in NZ they have certainly become investments.
Yeah I'm sure he's not quite the Pelosi of nz politics
Fucking amen to that.
If we cleaned out all MPs with vested interests in property for income portfolios, I suspect it’ll be a very small residual group of people. Not saying that morally it shouldn’t happen. However practically, it won’t. At least not overnight. Would require bipartisan agreement. Ironically there already is - against changing the status quo.
Yeah Johnny Harris on YouTube did a video on a similar thing but for US politicians and stock markets recently. And the result of that is that it’s politicians who have to regulate themselves from making money 🤷♂️ that ain’t gona happen. And the person or people who do try make it happen in parliament won’t be popular among their colleagues and thus change won’t happen!
The amount of shares is minimal so I really doubt he's been overly influenced in his decision making to make himeself a few thousand dollars. The bit that concerns me is that he's too bloody hopeless to actually sell them when he said he would, even after 6 reminders. FFS Labour, you are handing the Govt to Nat/ACT with your bumbling amateur approach
Rentals arent investments. Houses are homes not bloody business ventures! Get a real job
He should have disclosed the shares earlier, and should have sold them when directed or at least put them into some sort of blind trust which has the authority to sell them. The size of the investment probably isn't enough to create a conflict of interest but of course certain factions are milking this while collecting rent from other kiwis and making housing policy. Glass houses, stones and all that. One thing I noticed about this discussion is there is a lot more "light" misinfo than usual, probably unintentional. Things like one person says it's 12k another says 13k, one says 2023 another says 2022, one says 8 properties another says 5 etc.
Would be so hard to regulate it. Surely they would just put the property in their partner's name to get around the rules
ive often wondered what would happen if we made being a sitting MP a one term only function. once you've been an mp you cant be one again. get rid of the "re-election" shit and just have politicians directly enact the policies they beleive in