Why the PM’s accommodation allowance failed the fairness test

Sunday, 3 March 2024

Tracy Watkins is editor of The Post and Sunday Star-Times.

OPINION: When it comes to houses, there are two types of people; those who love the comfort and free time that comes with a new build - or character-lovers who can look past leaks, peeling paint, gaps in the floor and the wind whistling through windows that never properly close to see only “potential”.

I’m one of the latter; we’ve lived surrounded by chaos for much of the last 15 years while renovating old houses, and have just bought our next one that also “needs work”.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon is obviously one of the former. This week, he agreed to pay back some of the $52,000-a-year accommodation allowance he received after turning down the chance to live in the traditional home of prime ministers, Premier House, choosing to live in a modern apartment instead.

It seems Premier House has gone the way of much of New Zealand’s infrastructure, and maintenance has fallen behind.

Coincidentally, our newest purchase is just over the fence from the residence.

From our kitchen window, we can see the grounds, which are an oasis of green and bird life. Kākā and Tūī regularly swoop past.

On Christmas Day people played cricket on the big back lawn; another day, long banquet tables were set up for a candlelit dinner attended by about 20 people.

Security guards patrol regularly, swinging their torch at night as they do a perimeter check.

There is also a pretty intimidating fence which my neighbours tell me went up after the Christchurch mosque attacks in 2019.

While it’s been a few years since I was inside, I recall it as a grand but faded beauty. I have memories of salmon-pink walls and curtains, which probably wouldn’t pass the scrutiny of an interior decorator these days.

Even then I’d still choose to live there over the PM’s preferred abode, across the road from Parliament at the Kate Sheppard Apartments, which seem very beige.

But that’s just me.

Like Premier House, our 1970s townhouse is a bit shabby and suffers from some dodgy interior design choices over the years.

But it was the best we could find at the time for our budget, and we have dreams of what it could be.

So I guess you could say the PM and I have that in common, that we both had to move to the capital for work and make choices about where we lived.

In my case, I had just been appointed editor of The Post, the capital’s daily newspaper, and after a few weeks of the daily commute from Martinborough it was pretty clear my partner and I - and our country-loving dog - were going to have to find a place closer to town.

Easier said than done; I looked at the very few rentals that would take dogs but since we were going to be spending most of our time in the city we decided to buy, especially as the rents were about the same as a mortgage.

I know we are hugely lucky to be able to make that choice. A warm, dry place to call home, with the basics of humanity, like having a dog for companionship and a sense of family - which shouldn’t be too much to ask in a first-world country.

But every day we are confronted with the heart-breaking reality that for many people this may never be achievable. There are too many stories of people being unable to find affordable family rentals, of people living in their car when they’re forced to choose between having a home or a dog, of pensioners who still rent being unable to make ends meet, of families living in appalling, disgraceful conditions and paying through the nose.

None of this is Christopher Luxon’s fault, but it is a world he should understand and have empathy for as prime minister.

Luxon was wrong to accept the $52,000-a-year accommodation allowance; not because he’s rich, not because he already owns seven properties, nor because the property that earned the allowance is mortgage-free.

It was wrong because it breaks all the rules of fairness. As PM he had the choice of living in a house that may not be all that comfortable, but which let’s face it is probably in better condition than most rentals. He chose not to live in that house but another one that he preferred. He had choices that a lot of other people don’t have, and he expected taxpayers to carry the cost for that choice.

That’s why it’s unfair.

We may not expect greatness from our prime ministers.

But Luxon needs to be better than that.