“(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.”

FFS, 365 days/nights @$50 = $18,250. One struggles to see the point of a $24,000 cap.

[DPF: The $24K gap is for all forms of accommodation. So one might spend 100 days in a hotel and 50 days privately]

The company I work for used to have rules that were aimed at making sure nobody profited from living away from home. Expenses were supposed to be recompense for actual out of pocket. We used to stick our noses into whether someone had a partner (and, if so, were they married or de facto), whether they had children, whether they had a mortgage or not in their home location, what sort of accommodation they lived in, how it was furnished. Because our expense policy required all these things. It annoyed the staff (it feels like penny pinching) and cost an enormous amount in administration.

We shifted to a bulk funding model – you get $200 a night for every night away from home. Spend it how you like, or don’t spend it, we don’t care. You can’t exactly get rich on it, and the reality remains that you are away from home. If you impose on friends or family so you can save some of it then that’s your problem. If you live cheaply to save some of it, then good on you. If you live expensively, not our problem.

The main problem with DPF’s scenario isn’t that it happens, it’s that the rules pretend that it doesn’t happen.

As for the Greens – I say good on them. Some of that money that turns up as return goes out as time – you don’t have a management agency because you do your own repairs – you trade time for money. You make a better return because you have good tenants – but that means you have to be a good tenant. You get a margin from living in a cheaper apartment – but you put up with that cheaper apartment without whinging.

Talk about a pig in a trough, pity we didnt see that Pig on SUNDAY last night.
A complete waste of my money and the worlds space.

Parliament already seems to be an insular environment. I’d prefer that MPs spent at least some of their time out in the community with the rest of us. If that means a few minutes each day walking home or in a bus, then great. If it means a few minutes a day talking to a taxi driver or, at the very minimum, watching a taxi driver earn a living, then that is better than nothing. But I’d rather they didn’t spend days at a time interacting with no one other than MPs and their own political minions.

I suppose the person who I think shows this type of ethos is, oh, how about John Key? I think he would fit this criteria nicely.

I think John Boscawen would also fit this criteria nicely. It would be nice to have more MPs who are generous with their own money not just ours.

(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.

How do we know that the MP gains no benefit? I would no be surprised if some of them would not be above splitting the $50 with their friend or relation. Hobbs and Bunkle would be good examples. Has anyone noticed that those on the left are generally more likely to have the snout in the trough?

Interesting case, AG. I just love US court cases. They really go to town on each other over there and make us seem like shrinking violets by comparison.

IMHO as soon as personal wealth becomes an entrance prerequisite for standing for Parliament, then you have a class system.

That would make being an MP a public service, one that isn’t there to provide former trades unionists, lecturers and teachers with a taxpayer subsidised free ride.

I suppose the person who I think shows this type of ethos is, oh, how about John Key? I think he would fit this criteria nicely.

Phew, lucky we can cover up the corruption to get a low corruption score….

Lets see them queue up to be elected then.