By AUDREY YOUNG Political reporter
Act leader Richard Prebble has condemned a questionnaire on MPs' private housing arrangements as "intrusive."
The questionnaire, issued by the Higher Salaries Commission, is designed to help determine an MP's primary place of residence.
It asks not only that question, but others, such as:
Is the residence a bach or holiday home?
Is it owned and maintained by you or your current spouse/partner?
Is it owned and maintained by a trust established by you or your current spouse/partner? (Give ownership details).
Is it lived in by anyone other than your own immediate family? (Give details of their name and relationship to you).
Mr Prebble said he had filled in the questionnaire, but there was no legal reason for the detail requested.
"I wouldn't ask those questions of a social welfare beneficiary. Why on earth are MPs being asked them?
"How could it possibly be the business of the Higher Salaries Commission whether you have a trust or not?"
What business of theirs was it who lived at your home? he asked.
"I am mystified that the civil service is asking for this personal information which is irrelevant."
The formulation of the questionnaire pre-dates the resignation of ministers Phillida Bunkle and Marian Hobbs over their receipt of allowances when registered on the Wellington Central roll as Wellington residents.
But since their cases have surfaced, another question has been added, asking MPs where they are enrolled as electors.
MPs whose primary place of residence is outside Wellington and who choose not to stay in a hotel are entitled to up to $16,000 a year towards board, rent or a mortgage for their accommodation in the capital.
Greens co-leader Rod Donald said his January claims were withheld by the Parliamentary Service in the mistaken belief he had not answered the questionnaire.
He had not objected to the questions, calling them "more than reasonable scrutiny," and not intrusiveness.
"In order to be able to justify getting a Wellington accommodation allowance, it is beholden of an MP to be able to prove that what they are claiming as their primary place of residence is genuinely that, rather than a cottage at the beach."
Act MPs might object, but the party had had a hand in creating the climate that had led to the degree of scrutiny.
Now only one MP had an outstanding claim, said the Parliamentary Service.
Commission chairman Hutton Peacock said the questions were used to help define primary place of residence when no single question would do.
But he said the commission might have gone too far, for example, on the issue of who owned a trust and the questionnaire could be refined.
"It's the first time we've done it and it could be overkill.
"I have told at least one caucus that we're not really concerned about who owns the trust."
Prebble objects to questions on MPs' homes
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.