Carl Bates
Trusts linked to Whanganui first-term National MP Carl Bates and his family own 25 properties, which are not disclosed on Parliament’s list of MPs’ property and financial interests.
Many of the properties are rentals in Whanganui, making Bates’ family one of the biggest private landlords in his electorate.
Bates told the Herald he was merely a beneficiary of the trusts and had checked he was declaring everything required of him.
A number of the trust properties are at the lower end of the Whanganui market, with rateable values (RVs) of $350k, $375k, $295k, $340k, $320k, $330k, and even $160k.
One property, a modern three-bedroom house with a rateable value (RV) of $500,000, was recently rented out for $570 a week, providing a 6% rental return.
Further up the country is a $855k two-bedroom townhouse in Epsom, Auckland, a “modern terrace home, extending over three levels, perfectly suited for an ambitious young family, a professional couple looking for a hassle-free lifestyle, or investors”.
Under Parliamentary rules, MPs must declare their business, property, and other legal interests, “thereby providing transparency and confidence in parliamentary processes and decision making”.
These declarations are recorded and published on Parliament’s Register of Pecuniary Interests. The Register is overseen and published by the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests, currently Sir Maarten Wevers. The pecuniary disclosure rules are ultimately set by Parliament’s Standing Orders Committee.
Bates told the Herald, “When I moved into politics, I exited my business interests to focus solely on being an MP. This included selling my businesses and moving away from involvement in a family property portfolio.
“As a discretionary beneficiary of a family trust which has an interest in a property portfolio, I have no involvement in it or its interests, as is common for family trusts.
“Upon becoming an MP, I met with the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests in advance of filing my return to ensure I would be declaring everything required of me.”
In recent parliamentary history, two MPs, Winston Peters and Michael Wood, have fallen foul of the pecuniary reporting rules and been referred to Parliament’s disciplinarians, the Privileges Committee.
In 2008, the committee ruled that Peters had failed to declare a $100k donation from businessman Owen Glenn to his legal fund. More recently, Wood found himself in front of the committee to explain his Auckland Airport shares.
The 2008 Committee report into Peters considered donations channelled through third parties and clarified the rules stating “all distinct interests must be declared, regardless of whether they are channelled through a trust or third party”.
Following that report, in 2010 the Standing Orders Committee clarified the rules to require MPs to “declare any real property in which they have an interest, including property owned by a trust of which they are a beneficiary”.
Despite those changes, some MPs used private superannuation schemes to hide real property from the pecuniary register. That loophole was closed in 2014 after being exposed by a 2013 Herald investigation.
The 2023 report into Wood’s shares highlighted another area of confusion.
Wood was the beneficiary of a trust that owned shares. One of the questions the Privileges Committee considered was whether Wood should have declared those shares. The Registrar argued that he should have, but also noted that the rules may not make it “clear that members must, under certain circumstances, declare shareholdings held in trust.” The committee concluded that under the current Standing Orders it was not required.
Both the Registrar and the Privileges Committee agreed more clarity was needed and the committee recommended that “Standing Orders Committee give consideration to clarifying how interests in trusts should be dealt with”. Nothing has changed since then, but this will likely be part of the Review of Standing Orders 2026.
Bates’ situation illustrates another potential way for MPs to avoid reporting interests in property.
Bates says he has done what is required of him. “The Registrar advised me that property held in a company whose shares are held by a trust, was not required to be declared.”
Public records show that when Bates was elected to Parliament he had shareholdings in two family-owned real estate investment companies, which between them own 25 properties in Whanganui, Palmerston North, Wellington, and Auckland. He had previously been the director, alongside his mother, of both companies. His mother still directs both companies and is the largest shareholder in each company.
On his pecuniary declaration, Bates declared he was a beneficiary of the Carpe Diem Trust. The English translation of carpe diem is seize the day.
Shortly after Bates was elected as an MP a company called Seize the Day Trustee Company Limited was created with Bates’ mother and her lawyer as directors. A week later Bates’ shareholdings in the two property companies were transferred to Seize the Day Trustee Company Limited.
Many MPs are beneficiaries of trusts. Creating a trustee company to hold property and putting its shares into a trust is relatively simple. When Bates was asked what was to stop all MPs using a structure like this to avoid declaring real property, he said that was a question for the Registrar, Sir Maarten Wevers.
Wevers declined to comment on whether properties owned by companies that are owned by trusts are beyond the reach of the pecuniary register, pointing the Herald to guidance provided to MPs stating that while the Registrar provides advice, “it remains the responsibility of each member to identify their interests”.
Bryce Edwards, director of the Integrity Institute said, “This is a real can of worms.
“The nexus between housing ownership, pecuniary interests and politicians is of great public concern in New Zealand.
“If politicians can get away with not reforming this area, they will. There really has to be extra strong pressure put on the institution of Parliament to clear this up because it’s just going to reduce public trust in the political process more and more, and rightly so.
“One of the best ways that this might be corrected is through the review of the standing orders. It sounds like a really boring, dry process, but this is something that does have an impact on whether our democracy works.
“Anyone with an interest in fairness in politics needs to put in a submission to clear this up.”
Public submissions on the review are open until Thursday September 25.
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.