Hodgson Pete: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Hodgson Pete: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16148] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I think it is time to return to clause 88 of the Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill and get a few things said. My colleague Maryan Street mentioned that ministerial accommodation is now provided at the rate of $37500 per Minister and that is the case. There are two exceptions however. The first is where the Minister lives in Wellington as does the Minister of Revenue the Hon Peter Dunne. He is eligible for no such— 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: And he has never sought anything.  
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Indeed he has not I am sure because he goes home when he goes home which is not something I was able to do or am able to do because I do not live in Wellington; I live in Dunedin. Any Minister who lives in Wellington is not eligible for that $37500. Therefore any possibility of the provision of an accommodation allowance instead of accommodation as stated in new subsection (1B)(b) in clause 88(2) cannot apply to a Wellington-based Minister. But there is another category of Minister who does not receive $37500 and those Ministers are the ones who had a house here when they were in Opposition and who live during the week in that same house now that they are Ministers in Government. Their allowance is not $37500. I cannot remember what it is; it is a little bit less than that. Let us call it $27500—I have actually forgotten the amount. 
The point is that the $37500 is payable to Ministers—and most Ministers fall into the $37500 category—irrespective of how much money they spend on Wellington accommodation. It is a gift. It goes into their bank account fortnightly or monthly or whenever it is for them to spend on accommodation as they see fit. They are of course entitled to spend more than $37500 a year on Wellington accommodation. Maybe some of them do. But if one thinks of $37500 as being a reasonably large amount of money compared with the amount of money that backbenchers get to spend on Wellington accommodation—somewhere less than two-thirds of that—then one can come to the conclusion that some Ministers are able to live in Wellington rather cheaply indeed. In fact once we say to anyone that they do not need to provide receipts for this expenditure that they can just take the money and use it as they see fit it is logical that there is an incentive to stay with a cousin. I do not know whether any Minister does that but the point I am making— 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Oh dear! You’re pathetic. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Hon Tariana Turia thinks it is funny. I do not. I think if we are looking for greater transparency in our systems including the taxation treatment of these things—as in clause 88—then giving people $37500 and saying they can have it no matter how much they spend on their Wellington accommodation is not transparent. 
The House got into a bit of a lather about a year ago concerning the Deputy Prime Minister who is also the Minister of Finance. He was double-dipping living in Dipton and in Wellington. As a result of that the Prime Minister John Key said not to worry that he would fix it that we would have a new system that the old system was too complicated. Well it was not complicated for every other member of the National-Maori-ACT Government Cabinet. It certainly was not complicated when I was in Cabinet but it seems to be too complicated now as even poor old Bill English got it all confused. So we changed the system. The new system the Prime Minister told us would be cheaper. He said: “Just you wait! I’m going to be really tough on my Ministers. They will get only $37500.” Guess what? The price of ministerial expenditure has gone up. 
To recap there is no taxation as mentioned in clause 88 on ministerial expenditure and I think that is proper. We have moved from actual and reasonable expenses—the actual costs—to some guesswork costs for every Minister. The guesswork has come in at $37500. Of course every Minister—reasonably—has maxed it out. They are all saying: “Yep sure I’m going to take all of that.” In fact it is given to them. They have no option. When we tot it all up we find that the Prime Minister who promised New Zealand cheaper ministerial accommodation has given New Zealand more expensive ministerial accommodation. Although I do not aim this argument at Ministers that means that a bunch of taxpayer money that used not to go into ministerial pockets now does go into ministerial pockets at a time when we are all supposed to be having a nil wage increase. 
So we can see that there is an issue around ministerial accommodation and it is not fixed by clause 88. It is not fixed and the only way to fix it is to go back to actual and reasonable expenses by one method or another. I think an honest and transparent Government or an honest and transparent bunch at Ministerial Services or an honest and transparent Minister responsible for Ministerial Services would take us back to that form of payment which served New Zealand rather well for a rather long time and was applied to any former Minister on this side of the Chamber and for their first couple of years all the Ministers on the other side of the Chamber as well. So I think clause 88 is worth reflecting on for what it does not do. I am pretty sure it will not cover that $37500 of expenditure. I am pretty sure it will not make it taxable. I do not think it should be taxable but I think the way in which we have managed to get ourselves an increase in ministerial expenses needs to be addressed.