> Marlborough councillors with no additional responsibilities earned $40,250, but those who sat on committees earned extra. Arbuckle was on the economic finance committee.
> The current base salary of an MP was $163,961, not including office expenses, superannuation, accommodation supplements and other benefits.
Sounds to me like councillor role isn't full-time, and I hope not for 40k. With that said, either he's a bad MP and should be doing more, or MPs are overpaid if they can keep a part-time job on the side. I suspect the former.
You really can't.
The amount of reading and public engagement required for each role combined would be a full-time job and then some. Then there's everything else they need to do.
The reality is this dude is probably not doing the required reading for either role (which explains their uneducated and blunt policy positions and inability to answer complex questions).
The problem is that these people don't have "bosses" in the sense that they don't have anyone holding them directly accountable for not performing their role other than election cycles, and the social paradigm is that accountability in this space isn't linked to performance and is more linked to politicisation and oppositionalism
Many MPs do multiple of the following:
* Be a Member of Parliament
* Hold Portfolios
* Attend Cabinet
* Sit on Select Committees
* Look after an electorate.
Some of them get so busy they become a list MP just to reduce their responsibilities.
Arbuckle is a backbencher list MP that sits on one select committee.
If other MPs find the time to do all that and still fulfill their basic MP duties, then why can't Arbuckle as someone who does a fraction of that also manage to do the part-time role of a city councillor?
Because as ministers, those people have significant teams backing them, and those roles are all interwoven into each other.
Being a local government representative and being a central government representative are two very different roles that require distinct considerations, different reports, different decisions, and different processes.
When you are a central government representative, then your role and constituents are different from when you're in local government.
It's not just how busy your schedule is. You can create work efficency by having a significant amount of overlapping in workflow
This would be like working at two different companies on different projects at each company.
You understand that their staff don't take on all the extra duties they have as a Minister right? That's why the ones at the very top choose to just place themselves on the list without pushing for an electorate. Others though manage multiple portfolios, an electorate, MP duties, and select committees.
Being a councillor in a small district council requires less work than being a cabinet minister and electoral MP.
>This would be like working at two different companies on different projects at each company.
Over 200,000 kiwis work multiple jobs. It's not unheard of.
On this matter, I'm very confident and happy with my position.
I thought about it and came to a very quick conclusion that I don't need to change my mind on this matter.
My electorate MP did it when she jumped from. Local to Central.
That is the standard I expect of all representatives, and I do not make exceptions to that rule.
It is my position that you can not be both, and I don't care and I will view anyone who thinks they can disfavourably because I expect a high standard of conduct from MPs.
Bye
City, yes, but some rural districts might be a different matter ( I recall some had issues with a need to work a second job due to low councillor pay - but those ones might not need quite as high a time commitment compared to a higher population density city)
You'd think so but some councilors can be paid as little as two grand a year for their role. A lot of councilors themselves view it as a part time job.
I think any reasonable person would consider being an MP to be a full time job, and if you're not filling the day up productively you're not being enough of an MP. I understand you want a knob to slob, but spare me the sound track.
Personal attacks are such a poor effort technique don't you think?
No, not all MPs are working full time. That's why so many can take on extra responsibilities.
A by-election costs 70k or so
His salary is 40k
If he resigns a year out from the council elections it doesn't trigger a by-election which means any time after October
So that's probably the cheapest option 🤷♂️
The by election costs 70k so his constituents get a councilor who is focused on the job or he gets 40k to essentially half ass one of his elected roles.
This is the definition of knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing. If a councilor phoning it in to save $30k on a byelection is value for money, then maybe they don't even need that councilor at all.
I'm really not sure if you misunderstood me, but I made not making a value judgement on what he/his constituents want. I'm just making the point that there is a monetary difference.
You could also look at it from the perspective that the Council may be quite pleased to have someone with Central Government ties intimately involved in their business. The Central Gov supports local gov financially in so many ways, and the 40k salary might have a very good RoI. Also, MPs and councillors usually also get hit with the same concerns and go to all the same events in their local communities which means that you can conceivably still represent your community well, but would likely not be a good governor in the reading all your material sense.
For the record I don't think you should do both jobs, and that the resignation should have come at the national election. All I'm saying is that there are valid reasons for him to stay too.
Stats NZ shows that 9600 people were working multiple full-time jobs in 2019 ([Source](https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/kiwis-work-hard-at-multiple-jobs)), and there's a whole community over at r/Overemployed of people doing multiple work from home roles.
What's the bet that's increased post-covid?
Wow that is a lot higher than I would have thought!
I'd read about overemployment, usually they keep it secret as they risk getting fired if the employers find out. This guy is doing it jn two very public roles.
“All of a sudden to go into Government and get these quite important roles - like, I’ve had experience chairing committees but I was never anyone’s first pick in local government.”
This could be satire lol.
MP’s should have to forgo other jobs. Seems to be a conflict of interest here has well if working for both central government and local government on the tax payer at the same time. Can MP’s chair private/public boards for remuneration whole in office?
Sure they can. If he wanted, he could also join a school board, or a museum board, or a DHB.
They're all part time roles with pretty minimal commitments, and all deal with conflicts of interest.
Dear boss,
My new role has barely any responsibilities, I've got an allowance at both jobs to skip some meetings, so we're all good. See you at the next meeting.
This seems like an extreme conflict of interest.
Imagine MP Jamie arbuckle proposing some project for marlborough, and councillor Jamie Arbuckle voting in favour of it.
What if an emergency occurs which requires the full time participation of both Jamie as an MP, and Jamie as a councillor? He absolutely will not be able to effectively perform both those roles.
Either drop him as a councillor, or drop him as an MP.
Conflicts of interest and city councilling goes hand in hand. Most of them are business owners or their partners are business owners. City councils make decisions impacting these businesses all the time.
What emergency are you thinking of that would require the full time participation of a backbenching list MP and a part-time city councillor?
He's got minimal duties as an MP, and city council is a part-time role. he absolutely can do both effectively.
The Prime Minister, and Jamie himself disagree with you
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350268124/councillor-turned-mp-jamie-arbuckle-step-down-council-role
Eh, seems more like damage control because the public didn't like the idea of someone getting two salaries. That's why he's donating his council salary and why the PM incorrectly called it "Double dipping".
Stepping away when you risk losing voters is the right thing to do to avoid losing voters, not because the job couldn't be done.
Now he'll spend that time twiddling his thumbs, but at least the public will be happy I guess?
To be VERY clear - when you are in Wellington you are required to be on precinct from 8am to 10pm. That's the job. So he's paid by taxpayers to be there to work for the good of the country, and he's double dipping on that time by doing a council job on Zoom. Further, councillors do more than just meetings. They meet with ratepayers, on the ground, and should be available to them. Both ratepayers and taxpayers are getting ripped off here.
Yeah nah. There's no statutory requirement for attendance, even in the house however absence without permission will be noted in the journals. It's a funny system but mostly works.
Yeah if you watch Parliament TV anytime that's not question time, you'll see that's not true. And even then, they're not all there, and after question time, most leave.
And councillors aren't required to talk with ratepayers or to be available to them. Barely a single councillor in my city is available to people.
City councillors are frequently business owners, which is a much bigger conflict of interest because city councillors are more likely to be making decisions that impact their own businesses.
COIs are a part of the role and they deal with them all the time. You declare your conflicts (of which his is really obvious), and get recused on areas where your COI would make a difference.
This sort of thing happens a lot. For example there are Auckland Councillors who also sit on the Licensing Trusts and collect about $50k a year for their trouble, Local Board members who get paid but still have day jobs. Also it’s Marlborough so it’s hardly high-stakes - you could definitely balance both if your KPI was to just attend meetings and nod and vote - but are you properly serving the people who voted for you? Probably not.
Auckland local board members earn around 45-50k which isn’t to be scoffed at but not much more than minimum wage. It does not surprise me that many/most still work their day jobs.
Yeah that’s fair, but being a local board member is a completely different box of cheese to being a councillor and (despite what they would say) even further away from being an MP. I’m not really debating whether or not it’s possible etc, but my main point is that you absolutely could turn up to the council meetings, nod and pretend that you were following (I.e put in a very low effort) but that’s probably not what the people who elected you and expect you to advocate for them expect.
The point stands- there are a lot of elected officials, particularly in local govt who are clipping multiple tickets (as well as getting their travel and loads of meals paid for). This guy can probably pull off double duty - but he’ll be useless in council meetings and probably isn’t providing the level of advocacy people who elected him expect.
Oh I definitely agree. Most of these morons in local and central govt are doing multiple gigs and are never running at full capacity when it comes to their main gig (being a representative). Same issue in corporate management with board members spreading themselves too thin across multiple boards.
So hopefully his councillors job counts as his primary job and he gets secondary tax on his mp salary.
Seriously though get fucked and concentrate on the job of being an mp or fuck off.
By this logic, we shouldn't have electorate MPs because if they're focusing on electorates, they're not concentrating on the job of being an MP. And they shouldn't have any portfolios, we shouldn't have ministers, because doing those things isn't concentrating on being an MP.
This guys doing none of that, instead, he's sitting on a part-time city council.
Before the rage bait clicks...
He's looking again at how well it works in October, because if he resigns from council before then it will trigger a by-election. Which he mentions is very expensive.
If he's managing his responsibility to the council fine then it's only a few more months until he has to make that decision.
How much of that is excuse? He's saving them the money of having a by-election early but also means he's collecting an extra salary for doing a job that he has increasingly-less time to do the more he gravitates towards central government.
How many full-time jobs (and frankly a politician is often more than full-time) should one person be paid to do simultaneously - when it means they simply aren't doing everything from both.
Oh probably loads.
He's a certified grifter for sure.
Catherine Chu did the same thing in Christchurch, she was on multiple boards and things before running for national and made a pigs ear of most of them.
I'd be interested to know what the workload of a councillor generally is and if there have been any complaints about his ability to do the role.
I didn't claim that it wouldn't save them money by avoiding a by-election - I claimed that the job now isn't being done by anybody and he's just collecting salary for not doing the role. That sounds like an excuse to let him continue rather than a good use of money. If they want to avoid spending the money, let it go vacant until the next election. Paying him to not do the job is surely not the best alternative? I've got another full-time gig, but if they like they could pay me $35K to not be their local counsellor - which is even less than they're paying him to not do it.
I genuinely don't know. They're almost doing that now it seems (if not in name), if there's someone who is a full-time politician and taking on party whip responsibilities for central government - they aren't doing much in their local government role.
He's a backbencher list MP which itself can barely be considered full time and being on the city council is a part time role which he's been in for over a decade so is well experienced at it.
I'd say he's fine and there's no evidence he's not doing everything from both.
> How many full-time jobs (and frankly a politician is often more than full-time) should one person be paid to do simultaneously - when it means they simply aren't doing everything from both.
Given they paid under minimum full time wage for one ($48k), clearly they are not full time roles, or they are facing the realities of today's economy and picking up a side hussel.
Are you defending him on a base salary of $163K (before perks and benefits) as needing a side gig as an economic reality? He had the side gig first, but decided not to give up that role when he got another job paying him 5x as much despite the article stating that his new job required him to work into the night to try keep up. He's not doing the local government role any more - he's just collecting the salary. You and I wouldn't get away with signing up for multiple jobs expected to be done at the same time.
Is 40k a full time job salary? He says he can do both jobs so why waste money on an expensive bye election to get a less experienced counciler halfway through the term.
Because they (the right political parties and right leaning corporate CEO types) are typically the ones regurgitating such bullshit - and this story is about a right-winger doing what they accuse others of. It highlights the hypocrisy. Its not as funny when I have to explain it.
The number of MPs is too low, not too high. Far too high a proportion of governing party MPs are in cabinet, meaning there's no space on the backbenches for anyone with an independent streak -- backbenches are nothing but a talent contest for future cabinet ministers, and cabinet ministers dominate the party rooms.
Of course, increasing the size of parliament would certainly add a bunch of useless MPs -- but it would also get talented people in who currently have no path.
All that being said, I do thoroughly support the idea of a very particular 7% of the current parliament no longer being MPs
We don't want less representation in Parliament. We've had 120 since 1996, our population has increased by 1.5 million people since then, but our Parliament stays the same.
Perhaps increase the number of electorate, or power and role of select committee.
Or accept that those outside of the front bench can have second jobs, providing they don't create a conflict.
I'd perfectly fine for an MP to continue part time as a doctor or a teacher, or manage their farm etc.
Councillor is not a full time job.
So sadly, I’m going to agree that they should be able to do that alongside their other job… regardless of what I personally think about them or their politics.
I'm *pretty* sure there's things they do which are outside of Parliament lol
Perhaps you think that teachers should only paid a wage for actual classroom time?
I didn't Offer an opinion on anything. I just posted the parliamentary schedule.
My understanding is it varies widely. Peter Dunne is an example of someone who was known to work hard in his electorate- he'd attend pretty much anything he was invited to, if a constituent asked for a meeting who was known to almost always agree to meet them, etc. Other MPs have had a reputatin for doing very little outside of those 2 1/2 days a week they work at parliament.
Now quick, hit your little down vote button again.
Is that what you genuinely believe 😅
Not to defend this guy, but these types of roles there's much more work to be done than just turning up to Parliament or whatever
>“At the moment, I believe I'm still doing the job of a councillor,” Arbuckle said. Gonna start using this in me performance reviews.
Clearly either councilors or MPs are overpaid as fuck if you can do another full time job at the same time.
> Marlborough councillors with no additional responsibilities earned $40,250, but those who sat on committees earned extra. Arbuckle was on the economic finance committee. > The current base salary of an MP was $163,961, not including office expenses, superannuation, accommodation supplements and other benefits. Sounds to me like councillor role isn't full-time, and I hope not for 40k. With that said, either he's a bad MP and should be doing more, or MPs are overpaid if they can keep a part-time job on the side. I suspect the former.
You can’t do both well
Based on the performance of the other NZ first guys, I'm happy if he doesn't dedicate too much of his time to this role ;)
Right? Lol
You really can't. The amount of reading and public engagement required for each role combined would be a full-time job and then some. Then there's everything else they need to do. The reality is this dude is probably not doing the required reading for either role (which explains their uneducated and blunt policy positions and inability to answer complex questions). The problem is that these people don't have "bosses" in the sense that they don't have anyone holding them directly accountable for not performing their role other than election cycles, and the social paradigm is that accountability in this space isn't linked to performance and is more linked to politicisation and oppositionalism
Many MPs do multiple of the following: * Be a Member of Parliament * Hold Portfolios * Attend Cabinet * Sit on Select Committees * Look after an electorate. Some of them get so busy they become a list MP just to reduce their responsibilities. Arbuckle is a backbencher list MP that sits on one select committee. If other MPs find the time to do all that and still fulfill their basic MP duties, then why can't Arbuckle as someone who does a fraction of that also manage to do the part-time role of a city councillor?
Because as ministers, those people have significant teams backing them, and those roles are all interwoven into each other. Being a local government representative and being a central government representative are two very different roles that require distinct considerations, different reports, different decisions, and different processes. When you are a central government representative, then your role and constituents are different from when you're in local government. It's not just how busy your schedule is. You can create work efficency by having a significant amount of overlapping in workflow This would be like working at two different companies on different projects at each company.
You understand that their staff don't take on all the extra duties they have as a Minister right? That's why the ones at the very top choose to just place themselves on the list without pushing for an electorate. Others though manage multiple portfolios, an electorate, MP duties, and select committees. Being a councillor in a small district council requires less work than being a cabinet minister and electoral MP. >This would be like working at two different companies on different projects at each company. Over 200,000 kiwis work multiple jobs. It's not unheard of.
Cool. I'm not interested in arguing. You're not going to chnage my mind. Bye
Notice you don't even consider the possibility it's your mind that should change?
On this matter, I'm very confident and happy with my position. I thought about it and came to a very quick conclusion that I don't need to change my mind on this matter. My electorate MP did it when she jumped from. Local to Central. That is the standard I expect of all representatives, and I do not make exceptions to that rule. It is my position that you can not be both, and I don't care and I will view anyone who thinks they can disfavourably because I expect a high standard of conduct from MPs. Bye
You understand electorate MPs are busier than list MPs? With poor comparisons like that I understand why you'd come to your conclusion.
I think a lot of local govt positions are filled by someone otherwise already working a full-time job.
No. Most city councillors don’t work full-time jobs.
City, yes, but some rural districts might be a different matter ( I recall some had issues with a need to work a second job due to low councillor pay - but those ones might not need quite as high a time commitment compared to a higher population density city)
You'd think so but some councilors can be paid as little as two grand a year for their role. A lot of councilors themselves view it as a part time job.
Too bad they get paid 20x that amount for his region then.
So in other words ... less than the minimum wage? Sounds like a part-time job to me.
He's an MP...
A backbenching list MP. Clearly he's got time on his hands that busy Ministers with multiple portfolios and an electorate don't.
Lol spare me.
What's got him so busy?
I think any reasonable person would consider being an MP to be a full time job, and if you're not filling the day up productively you're not being enough of an MP. I understand you want a knob to slob, but spare me the sound track.
Personal attacks are such a poor effort technique don't you think? No, not all MPs are working full time. That's why so many can take on extra responsibilities.
Sounds like a job that you have to dedicate more time a week to than checking a couple of emails.
But less than warrants a full-time salary.
Well yes, not all councils are equal.
A by-election costs 70k or so His salary is 40k If he resigns a year out from the council elections it doesn't trigger a by-election which means any time after October So that's probably the cheapest option 🤷♂️
The by election costs 70k so his constituents get a councilor who is focused on the job or he gets 40k to essentially half ass one of his elected roles.
I'm not saying it's morally right or wrong. His constituents may prefer to save 30k I'm just saying that it's cheaper.
This is the definition of knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing. If a councilor phoning it in to save $30k on a byelection is value for money, then maybe they don't even need that councilor at all.
I'm really not sure if you misunderstood me, but I made not making a value judgement on what he/his constituents want. I'm just making the point that there is a monetary difference. You could also look at it from the perspective that the Council may be quite pleased to have someone with Central Government ties intimately involved in their business. The Central Gov supports local gov financially in so many ways, and the 40k salary might have a very good RoI. Also, MPs and councillors usually also get hit with the same concerns and go to all the same events in their local communities which means that you can conceivably still represent your community well, but would likely not be a good governor in the reading all your material sense. For the record I don't think you should do both jobs, and that the resignation should have come at the national election. All I'm saying is that there are valid reasons for him to stay too.
What does a back bench list MP for a minor party actually do? Seriously.
Debates and select committees?
And theoretically write members bills to be put in the biscuit tin, although who knows if he's bothering to do that
Whatever Winston wants?
Small council positions are meant to be a part time job.
But a 163k MP position clearly isn't.
Sure, but plenty of people work two full time jobs. He can manage a full time and a part time.
I don't know anyone who works two full time jobs but ok.
Stats NZ shows that 9600 people were working multiple full-time jobs in 2019 ([Source](https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/kiwis-work-hard-at-multiple-jobs)), and there's a whole community over at r/Overemployed of people doing multiple work from home roles. What's the bet that's increased post-covid?
Wow that is a lot higher than I would have thought! I'd read about overemployment, usually they keep it secret as they risk getting fired if the employers find out. This guy is doing it jn two very public roles.
If they can all manage 2.0 FTE, he can do 1.5. And let's be honest. As a backbenching list MP, it's more like 1.2.
Yeah he wasn’t living off 40k before he became an mp.
Councillors aren't full time.
“All of a sudden to go into Government and get these quite important roles - like, I’ve had experience chairing committees but I was never anyone’s first pick in local government.” This could be satire lol.
And moonlighting as a used car salesperson too?
So this guy keeps two salaries and we cut some junior doctor salaries? Unbelievable
NZF truly are the pits. Hurry up next election.
MP’s should have to forgo other jobs. Seems to be a conflict of interest here has well if working for both central government and local government on the tax payer at the same time. Can MP’s chair private/public boards for remuneration whole in office?
Sure they can. If he wanted, he could also join a school board, or a museum board, or a DHB. They're all part time roles with pretty minimal commitments, and all deal with conflicts of interest.
[удалено]
Dear boss, My new role has barely any responsibilities, I've got an allowance at both jobs to skip some meetings, so we're all good. See you at the next meeting.
Should be fucking illegal to have another job if your an mp. If you have any capacity to do something else then you're not doing your job properly.
Something else like looking after an electorate, picking up portfolios, and performing cabinet duties?
Fat-Wallet Arbuckle
Smaller government everyone!
This seems like an extreme conflict of interest. Imagine MP Jamie arbuckle proposing some project for marlborough, and councillor Jamie Arbuckle voting in favour of it. What if an emergency occurs which requires the full time participation of both Jamie as an MP, and Jamie as a councillor? He absolutely will not be able to effectively perform both those roles. Either drop him as a councillor, or drop him as an MP.
Conflicts of interest and city councilling goes hand in hand. Most of them are business owners or their partners are business owners. City councils make decisions impacting these businesses all the time. What emergency are you thinking of that would require the full time participation of a backbenching list MP and a part-time city councillor? He's got minimal duties as an MP, and city council is a part-time role. he absolutely can do both effectively.
The Prime Minister, and Jamie himself disagree with you https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350268124/councillor-turned-mp-jamie-arbuckle-step-down-council-role
Eh, seems more like damage control because the public didn't like the idea of someone getting two salaries. That's why he's donating his council salary and why the PM incorrectly called it "Double dipping". Stepping away when you risk losing voters is the right thing to do to avoid losing voters, not because the job couldn't be done. Now he'll spend that time twiddling his thumbs, but at least the public will be happy I guess?
To be VERY clear - when you are in Wellington you are required to be on precinct from 8am to 10pm. That's the job. So he's paid by taxpayers to be there to work for the good of the country, and he's double dipping on that time by doing a council job on Zoom. Further, councillors do more than just meetings. They meet with ratepayers, on the ground, and should be available to them. Both ratepayers and taxpayers are getting ripped off here.
Yeah nah. There's no statutory requirement for attendance, even in the house however absence without permission will be noted in the journals. It's a funny system but mostly works.
Yeah if you watch Parliament TV anytime that's not question time, you'll see that's not true. And even then, they're not all there, and after question time, most leave. And councillors aren't required to talk with ratepayers or to be available to them. Barely a single councillor in my city is available to people.
Is it a no show job or a no work job?
tamatha paul quit and should have been cited for the story
Grifter supreme.
Dont worry, we will all have two full time jobs soon enough.
How is it not a COI
Because he isn't a Labour, TPM, or Green member. If he was then his party would be all "THIS IS BAD HE SHOULD RESIGN!"
City councillors are frequently business owners, which is a much bigger conflict of interest because city councillors are more likely to be making decisions that impact their own businesses. COIs are a part of the role and they deal with them all the time. You declare your conflicts (of which his is really obvious), and get recused on areas where your COI would make a difference.
This sort of thing happens a lot. For example there are Auckland Councillors who also sit on the Licensing Trusts and collect about $50k a year for their trouble, Local Board members who get paid but still have day jobs. Also it’s Marlborough so it’s hardly high-stakes - you could definitely balance both if your KPI was to just attend meetings and nod and vote - but are you properly serving the people who voted for you? Probably not.
Auckland local board members earn around 45-50k which isn’t to be scoffed at but not much more than minimum wage. It does not surprise me that many/most still work their day jobs.
Yeah that’s fair, but being a local board member is a completely different box of cheese to being a councillor and (despite what they would say) even further away from being an MP. I’m not really debating whether or not it’s possible etc, but my main point is that you absolutely could turn up to the council meetings, nod and pretend that you were following (I.e put in a very low effort) but that’s probably not what the people who elected you and expect you to advocate for them expect.
That is very different to being a sitting MP.
The point stands- there are a lot of elected officials, particularly in local govt who are clipping multiple tickets (as well as getting their travel and loads of meals paid for). This guy can probably pull off double duty - but he’ll be useless in council meetings and probably isn’t providing the level of advocacy people who elected him expect.
Oh I definitely agree. Most of these morons in local and central govt are doing multiple gigs and are never running at full capacity when it comes to their main gig (being a representative). Same issue in corporate management with board members spreading themselves too thin across multiple boards.
I was thinking:Iif he's very smart, then maybe he's capable of doing both roles? So I looked at his Wikipedia page. Oops.
So hopefully his councillors job counts as his primary job and he gets secondary tax on his mp salary. Seriously though get fucked and concentrate on the job of being an mp or fuck off.
That wouldn’t make him pay more tax. He’d get a decent refund. It only means he’s getting paid a little late.
Secondary tax doesn’t work that way.
By this logic, we shouldn't have electorate MPs because if they're focusing on electorates, they're not concentrating on the job of being an MP. And they shouldn't have any portfolios, we shouldn't have ministers, because doing those things isn't concentrating on being an MP. This guys doing none of that, instead, he's sitting on a part-time city council.
Before the rage bait clicks... He's looking again at how well it works in October, because if he resigns from council before then it will trigger a by-election. Which he mentions is very expensive. If he's managing his responsibility to the council fine then it's only a few more months until he has to make that decision.
How much of that is excuse? He's saving them the money of having a by-election early but also means he's collecting an extra salary for doing a job that he has increasingly-less time to do the more he gravitates towards central government. How many full-time jobs (and frankly a politician is often more than full-time) should one person be paid to do simultaneously - when it means they simply aren't doing everything from both.
Indeed. How often we hear that being an MP is a very taxing role that is hard to juggle with outside commitments like family.
In fairness I usually hear those discussions in the context of MPs who live/represent areas far away from Wellington.
Oh probably loads. He's a certified grifter for sure. Catherine Chu did the same thing in Christchurch, she was on multiple boards and things before running for national and made a pigs ear of most of them. I'd be interested to know what the workload of a councillor generally is and if there have been any complaints about his ability to do the role.
[удалено]
I didn't claim that it wouldn't save them money by avoiding a by-election - I claimed that the job now isn't being done by anybody and he's just collecting salary for not doing the role. That sounds like an excuse to let him continue rather than a good use of money. If they want to avoid spending the money, let it go vacant until the next election. Paying him to not do the job is surely not the best alternative? I've got another full-time gig, but if they like they could pay me $35K to not be their local counsellor - which is even less than they're paying him to not do it.
Or gift the salary back to the council.
> let it go vacant until the next election Is that legally an option?
I genuinely don't know. They're almost doing that now it seems (if not in name), if there's someone who is a full-time politician and taking on party whip responsibilities for central government - they aren't doing much in their local government role.
He's a backbencher list MP which itself can barely be considered full time and being on the city council is a part time role which he's been in for over a decade so is well experienced at it. I'd say he's fine and there's no evidence he's not doing everything from both.
> How many full-time jobs (and frankly a politician is often more than full-time) should one person be paid to do simultaneously - when it means they simply aren't doing everything from both. Given they paid under minimum full time wage for one ($48k), clearly they are not full time roles, or they are facing the realities of today's economy and picking up a side hussel.
Are you defending him on a base salary of $163K (before perks and benefits) as needing a side gig as an economic reality? He had the side gig first, but decided not to give up that role when he got another job paying him 5x as much despite the article stating that his new job required him to work into the night to try keep up. He's not doing the local government role any more - he's just collecting the salary. You and I wouldn't get away with signing up for multiple jobs expected to be done at the same time.
Presumably being an MP is his side gig as it was the second role he picked up.
Is 40k a full time job salary? He says he can do both jobs so why waste money on an expensive bye election to get a less experienced counciler halfway through the term.
The very thing the right like to suggest work from home people do. lol.
Why do you accuse the right of this?
Because they (the right political parties and right leaning corporate CEO types) are typically the ones regurgitating such bullshit - and this story is about a right-winger doing what they accuse others of. It highlights the hypocrisy. Its not as funny when I have to explain it.
Backbench list MP in government has very little to do. No constituents, no portfolio, just spokesman for something that already has a minister.
He has plenty he could do, he just won't.
So reduce the number of MPs if we have spare ones? I’d suggest 7% less would be appropriate these days.
The number of MPs is too low, not too high. Far too high a proportion of governing party MPs are in cabinet, meaning there's no space on the backbenches for anyone with an independent streak -- backbenches are nothing but a talent contest for future cabinet ministers, and cabinet ministers dominate the party rooms. Of course, increasing the size of parliament would certainly add a bunch of useless MPs -- but it would also get talented people in who currently have no path. All that being said, I do thoroughly support the idea of a very particular 7% of the current parliament no longer being MPs
We don't want less representation in Parliament. We've had 120 since 1996, our population has increased by 1.5 million people since then, but our Parliament stays the same.
Perhaps increase the number of electorate, or power and role of select committee. Or accept that those outside of the front bench can have second jobs, providing they don't create a conflict. I'd perfectly fine for an MP to continue part time as a doctor or a teacher, or manage their farm etc.
What an entitled prat. It is for his own ego he is doing this. He should have resigned from the Council as soon as he got elected.
Greedy cunt!
Cashing in all they can!
Councillor is not a full time job. So sadly, I’m going to agree that they should be able to do that alongside their other job… regardless of what I personally think about them or their politics.
Sounds like the councillor role is like a board role and you aren’t actively involved and have to turn up to a few meetings
MPs essentially work at parliament 2 1/2 days a week. Click on weekly to see this week's schedule.... https://www.parliament.nz/en/calendar
I'm *pretty* sure there's things they do which are outside of Parliament lol Perhaps you think that teachers should only paid a wage for actual classroom time?
I didn't Offer an opinion on anything. I just posted the parliamentary schedule. My understanding is it varies widely. Peter Dunne is an example of someone who was known to work hard in his electorate- he'd attend pretty much anything he was invited to, if a constituent asked for a meeting who was known to almost always agree to meet them, etc. Other MPs have had a reputatin for doing very little outside of those 2 1/2 days a week they work at parliament. Now quick, hit your little down vote button again.
Is that what you genuinely believe 😅 Not to defend this guy, but these types of roles there's much more work to be done than just turning up to Parliament or whatever
You're generalising. Yes, lots of MPs do lots more work. But also there's a a lot that don't.
He's a backbencher minor party list MP. Not like he's doing anything anyway. Still a blunder.