by frog
Metiria held a press conference at lunchtime today to announce that our MPs’ superannuation fund, the Green Futures Trust, will soon divest itself of its properties.
You can read Metiria’s full press release here.
There’s been so much confusion about MPs’ allowances and expenses lately that it’s hard to make head or tail of it all. Hopefully this decision will leave no doubt in the public’s mind about our MPs’ use of Parliamentary housing allowances.
When the Greens entered Parliament, the MPs wanted to make an ethical, sustainable superannuation investment, but there were no ethical investment funds in New Zealand. Back then, the retirement fund drew praise from the business press as an innovative, do-it-yourself plan.
Wellington properties have been part of MPs’ retirement savings since 1997, and haven’t cost taxpayers any extra money because our MPs have paid market rates on their rents (i.e. they’ve claimed the same from Parliamentary Services as if they were renting from anybody else. In fact, in some instances the rent has been a bit lower.
Still, the climate has changed in the last 12 years (pardon the pun!) and there’s suspicion around MPs’ expenses and allowances. The clearest thing the superannuation fund can do is sell the houses.
As we heard earlier this week, two of our MPs mistakenly overcharged for rent on one property for four months earlier this year. That mistake has been fixed and the money has been paid back, but it certainly contributed to the confusion.
Hopefully this announcement will clear things up once and for all!
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Like or Dislike:
6 
2 (+4)
It could be a ‘mistake’ or it could be an act of dishonesty. Either way, the public has no reason to have confidence in either the integrity or competence of politicians.
Like or Dislike:
6 
12 (-6)
Like or Dislike:
8 
4 (+4)
Like or Dislike:
8 
4 (+4)
So we have to sell the things off and invest the money in some other arrangement. It would actually be reasonable to simply make it a rule that we cannot rent from ourselves. Better to go the whole way with it though.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
Can I suggest you consider investing at least some of your funds with Prometheus.
Like or Dislike:
5 
3 (+2)
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
It would be nice to invest some of it in start-up businesses that are doing stuff that’s really good from an environmental viewpoint. Unfortunately, that would give you a conflict of interest if you wanted to advocate any policies that would be good for them, so I suggest you don’t do that.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
A few years ago being an MP was truely a public service. VERY low pay, only real travel allowances and parliament ran for only about 3 months of the year.
No need for accomodation allowances and all that sort of stuff. Hardly any need for taxis (thye werent in town long enough), and due to a very short parliament only really needed laws were passed.
i think we would gain a lot by going back to this. Then being an MP would be a real contribution to society. And being a minister would be very well paid and they would have most fo the year to concentrate on their job.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
As I understand it the purpose of the Green Futures Property Trust was to provide an source of retirement funding for Green MPs in addition to what every ordinary New Zealander receives (national superannuation) and in addition to what retiring Members of Parliament receive (parliamentary superannuation). The growth in the equity of the trust would come either from capital gains or from rental income.
Which seems to indicate that the Green MPs have been motivated by the same personal and material interests as the parliamentarians of all the other political parties, and the upper middle classes of New Zealand as a whole. Could one expect anything different? Well yes, one could expect a better example from those who profess to have a social conscience and who have been vocal critics of capitalist materialism.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
The Greens could have said that they were saving the taxpayer $24,000 a year with the 2 MP’s sharing accomodation … made it a good news for the taxpayer story.
The problem with non property investments (investment in property while calling fro a CGT is ethical) is they have their own ethical complexities.
The principle should be that the MP’s Fund and party have separation – thus if property no MP’s as tenants, and if not property no party involvement in investment choices nor knowledge of them apart from a few principles (no weapons making, non polluting etc).
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
The problem is that parliamentary politics under the present regime is seen as a means of becoming comfortably affluent as much as it is regarded as a public service. The Greens are no exception to this rule, as we all well know. Any form of investment, including residential property, will have ethical complications. If you want a critique of middle class investment in the residential property market in New Zealand check out “The Property Fetish and other bizarre forms of economic behaviour” on the republican website (www.republican.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
At a time when there were no reliable socially responsible investment funds in NZ, Rod’s idea was to create one that MP’s super funds could go into, while at the same time costing the taxpayer less. Maybe that’s an impossible thing to achieve. Of course they could have decided not to put a percentage of their salaries in any super scheme and/or refused govt matching, but I wonder how many really begrudge them doing so. I don’t.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Any profit-making investment involves a re-distribution of wealth – in most cases from the poor to the rich, from tenant to landlord, from worker to capitalist, from struggling homeowner to bank, finance company or loan shark. The Green MPs could put their superannuation money to a good cause – “social investment” – which is a better way of assuring the collective long term welfare than personal financial investments – or they could simply deposit it in the bank at no interest, which is what I do with my surplus funds. There are plenty of ways of avoiding ethical conflicts. But not if you want to get rich on the strength of someone else’s labour. Which is what the Green MPs seem to want to do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OK, I have to admit (despite your ever present and unnecessary moralising about other people’s intentions – a conversation we’ve had before) that very few of us have withdrawn from the system far enough to meet the very high bar you’ve set.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A fairly low bar has been set by parliament itself (the Green Party complies, with the exception of one instance noted of overcharging rent) and a somewhat higher bar has been set by religious doctrine (Jewish, Christian, and Muslim) with which the Green Party is not in compliance because it is, after all, a secular political party which does not need to respect religious doctrine.
But if the Greens are seriously committed to saving the planet they should not blindly follow every other capitalist into the property market, or the share market, or any other market. I suggest that they should have the courage of their convictions and make positive investments in socially and environmentally responsible green projects, rather than merely weed out some of the more objectonable elements from a non-ethical investment portfolio.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)