So now English accepts he has lived in Wellington since the last election. That leaves questions the first set of which are :-
- Where did he live for the 10 – 15 years before that?
- Why did he try a trust lease device to attempt to collect even more than he had been?
- How can he repay money from a trust that he has no interest in?
- Was/is the trust a sham?
- What did he tell John Key that caused Key to back him when his position was clearly unsustainable?
- Given 1 -5 above will he ever have the credibility necessary to tell Kiwis to tighten their belts?
1. Where did he live for the 10 – 15 years before that?
Wellington.
2. Why did he try a trust lease device to attempt to collect even more than he had been?
Greed.
3. How can he repay money from a trust that he has no interest in?
Hmmmm!
4. Was/is the trust a sham?
Probably.
5. What did he tell John Key that caused Key to back him when his position was clearly unsustainable?
Lies?
Given 1 -5 above will he ever have the credibility necessary to tell Kiwis to tighten their belts?
No.
Bill folding ?
English broken ?
No,no
Bill is just applying the flyspray to the irritating flies
so he can continue to professionally and successfully bring NZ out of the recession.
Nice work Trevor and Pete, kudos. And as you point out Trevor in the post, that’s not the end of it. Just be careful of that line he used in his presser about wanting to keep his family together – that could bite you, so make sure it doesn’t!
There is an opportunity to show leadership if you want, or if he would pay attention, and that would be to come up with a system that can cope with family pressures. Not sure myself what that is though.
1. Dipton
2. Perfectly legal.
3. By asking them
4. No.
5. The Honest truth: that he was within the rules
6. He has the credibility to take responsibility for his actions so, quite easily!
Rhetorical questions never work in politics, Trevor, you should know that!
Time for a “Pay it Back” campaign. He must owe the taxpayer at least $200.000 dollars by now!
There are 122 Mps . All others want to keep their families together ( apple pie, who doesnt)
Apart from those who proudly live in Wellington, like Trevor, is this suggesting those who dont move the family to Wellington are deliberately home wreckers.
But I note Keys revised ministerial allowances gives every minister a flat sum, whether they have a penthouse in Oriental bay or a studio flat in Rongotai. Will this be stretched to cover those whos electorates are outside the metro area
Keep sticking the fork in him Trevor. It’s unthinkable he can say “Ooh look, I’ve paid back the money I’ve received since the election so now it’s all over.”
10 years @ $24,000/annum while claiming to be an “out of town” MP comes to $240,000. I want my tax dollars back!
Capitulation on his part should not mean capitulation on your part. There’s still too many unanswered questions and there’s the issue of his integrity as a Minister of the Crown. Keep going.
Mr Mallard, I don’t know what part of “I will wait and see what the Auditor General has to say about it” is difficult for you to understand.
There are two sides to every story. You are only presenting one side of the story. You have accused Mr English of money laundering. That is a very serious allegation. Personally, I’d rather wait and see all the evidence, or at least await an impartial judge like the Auditor General to form an opinion of my own.
Unlike the Labour Party, which has a history of making wild allegations about other members of parliament, and has a history of attacking impartial judges as Labour did when the Auditor General ruled that the parliamentary spend on the pledge card was unlawful, I’m perfectly happy to await the judgement of the AG.
As I said at the Standard and said here (although it did take a whole day for my comment to appear while you moderated it, yet you seem quite comfortable for people like r0b and ghost to make defamatory comments about Mr English without moderation), if the Auditor General rules that Mr English acted unlawfully or unethically, I will more than happily call for Mr English’s resignation.
Mr Mallard, if the Auditor General rules that Mr English acted lawfully and ethically, will you offer an apology to him for calling him a “money laundering hypocrite”? Or will you do as you did with Melissa Lee during the by election when you made a baseless smear, saw an independent report exonerating her, and then pretend you never made the allegation in the first place?
#3 from a technical trust level is interesting. I guess comes down to the Trust deriving the benefit? Would depend how he actually had the money paid back. If through the trust then someone would have to order the trustees to pay the money back which if it was English would tend to define “control” of the assets which if he is not a trustee would be hard to argue.
But if English’s trust is a sham then so are tens of thousands of others all over NZ. Some in your own party Trevor.
Most settlors (ie. those who stump up with the cash or assets) in NZ treat a trust as their own personal bank account which is a large element of sham based on legal principles behind them.
Number 6 is an excellent question and one you should be pummelling him with rather than 1-5.
Bit like the US where Timothy Geithner failed to pay taxes yet is still Secretary to the Treasurer.
Around the world there are many sterling examples of officials who when they say “pay your tax” actually mean everyone else so they can avoid it.
Tim it has never taken a whole day for your comments to appear. Some people saw the humerous side of the play on extra cash for cleaning and money laundering. And the A- G won’t find on ethics though I’m pleased that Bill has effectively asked for the investigation to proceed because he claims a lack of clarity in the previous A – G report.
And the rest is off thread and an attempt at diversion – it is your habit of doing that and trolling that means your comments are one of a small group from both sides of Labour that are moderated.
mjw – yes, the ‘keep my family together’ line was run a lot when the story broke originally. Heatley especially was pushing that line. So for me, that argument is sounding a little tired. Further, immediately after making the stability claim he says “It’s now clear that the system has struggled to deal with my circumstances.” So he’s blaming the system and not himself? He’s still not taking personal responsibility for his actions. And without that sincerity this mud will continue to stick.
Kate – “But if English’s trust is a sham then so are tens of thousands of others all over NZ.” Perhaps, perhaps not. But in any event only one person with such a trust is Finance Minister during a recession, telling us all to tighten our belts while rorting the taxpayer…this isn’t about other NZers or Labour…it’s about Bill.
“..your comments are one of a small group from both sides of Labour that are moderated..
that’s knee-slappingly funny really..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Currently six phil. You are another. But I bet not for long because to date you haven’t been able to stay on thread. Trevor
Are you will ing to bet Mr Mallard that Labour will his seat at the election. Surely if he admits he doesnt live in the electorate then the voters will punish him in 2011. You would have thoguht National would have learnt its lesson from the mauling John Key got from Darien Fenton in Helensville after it was clear he lived in Parnell, but it looks like they are a bit slow on learning that lesson
For one of the first times I find myself disagreeing with you Trev.
As much as I believe that Bill English should be answering these questions fully and honestly, and not getting the allowance, on inspection of legislation he was actually entitled. Dont get me wrong,
I dont think this is a good thing, but I think it is a very important learning curve for Ministerial Allowances in New Zealand.
I think we should be looking at this as a room for improvement in our legislation and ministerial allowances.
@ rjs Not at all though I’m pretty sure John Key both before and after the election has had Auckland as his primary place of residence. And there is no suggestion that I am aware of that Key claimed an allowance based on an incorrect declaration as to where he lived.
Who was Hobbs again?
Surely there is a parallel.
Perhaps we should not forget her and Bunkle.
@pentwig they were the two who led to the report which caused the form Bill filled in to be developed/updated.
@james – can you give the legislation reference please
Very good points Mr. Mallard
On the question of trusts and not having pecuniary interests here is an excellent description of pecuniary interests from rOb over at The Standard.
Definately begs answeres to your questions;
#3 How can he repay money from a trust that he has no interest in?
#4 Was/is the trust a sham?
A. Did the trust pay the money back or did Bill?
B. If it was the trust – why did they pay on behalf of some with no pecuniary intrests?
C. If it was Bill why did he pay on behalf of a Trust he has no intrests in?
Darn it link didn’t work, oh well try this http://www.thestandard.org.nz/pecuniary-interest/#comment-161540
Abuse of intent of Parliamentary privilege is rife in the history of governance. Bill English represents a wrinkled billfold of ethics with many predecessors, and undoubted successors. The Nation trusts and is poorly rewarded for the trust.
What legacy will the wrinkled Bill-fold leave? A short-lived finance minister who had his hand in the national till?
As Steven Joyce said in a Saturday morning TV show – “rules are made so that people follow” it is not worth making rules that people do not embrace as being beneficial.
Wrinkled Bill-fold English may have followed some self serving technicality of rules, but every thinking person will agree that public funds flowed into his bank account or some trust’s account where he had a visceral interest in.
Parliamentarians around the world mouth probity while gouging their exchequer and populace they profess to serve; Bill English is a distinguished member of this global breed. He has even managed to become the deputy prime minister, and controller of purse strings as minister of finance.
It is grating to pay that tax Bill!
“.. But I bet not for long because to date you haven’t been able to stay on thread. Trevor..”
so..is riposting/commenting on your comment ‘off thread’..?
(the best threads grow organically..y’know..?)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Keep it up, Trev! Loving it. The smug fraudster. How dare he tell the rest of us to tighten our belts when he’s cheating the taxpayer of more than my parents combined earn in a year??
And if he’s so *entitled*, why did he pay (one year!) back? An admission of guilt if ever I saw one.
In relation to trusts, I think they are a very useful device to protect families from the activities of individual members. Given the exposure politicians have to legal suits – just ask Nick Smith for a good example – I reckon its perfectly okay to ensure that while the individual concerned can be sued, the family unit, and the home in particular, is protected.
There’s little doubt that Blinglish tweaked his trust arrangements to maximise entitlement – nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but has he been entitled to the accomodation supplement for the past 15 years at all? No way.
“How dare he tell the rest of us to tighten our belts when he’s cheating the taxpayer of more than my parents combined earn in a year??”…and therein lies English’s problem. I don’t disagree even if what English has doneis entirely lawful.
I don’t know what Richard Worth did but it must have been pretty terminal if Key hasn’t already asked for English’s resignation. The perception is god awful.
I think people have actually missed the point here. We have Treasury and the Reserve bank suggesting that we need to change both Tax and Monetary Policy and Bill is unmoved.
We have NZMEA, The Productive Economy Council, BERL and Rod Oram (to name a few) supporting Treasury and the Reserve Bank saying it’s time to focus on building the real economy and stop this stupidity of selling property to each other untill we sink under below the waves with the weight of foreign debt.
But Bill supports the current policies and these policies unfortunately support Bills personal asset position. That’s bad enough as no commercial board in New Zealand would allow this level of conflict of interest but Bill has actually gone past the “possible” conflict and has shown he is prepared to play the system, be it legal or not.
As the Minister of Finance and with tax reviews going on which effect the entire countries future I really would prefer not to have to guess if Bills recommendations are truly independent of his own circumstances. That to me is the real issue here.
By the way the debate is alive and well elsewhere if you want to see what others have to say
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/08/05/have-your-say-housing-minister-others-benefit-from-rents-paid-by-government/#comment-39972
Trevor I know its a Labour site but better to allow instant communication and remove rather in appropriate comments than delay the communication. This is the instant society and the reason why http://www.interest.co.nz is so popular. Selwyn
Generally that is the way it works Selwyn – after the first comment to stop spam – and except for repeat offenders. I think that having more than one link might also slow down. We certainly don’t preapprove comments.