These examples of politicians profiting from the housing affordability crisis raise essential issues about conflicts of interest that leaders have in deciding upon housing and tax policies. In making such large profits from their housing investments, the question is whether politicians are reluctant to change the policy settings.
For example, it might be in the public interest to introduce a capital gains tax, but notably, both Luxon and Ardern emphatically ruled out such a change. Has their antipathy towards a capital gains tax – or indeed other significant reforms to alleviate the housing crisis – been a case of being corrupted by self-interest?
Politicians get to keep their capital gains
Ardern and Luxon are accused of pocketing substantial annual salaries (nearly $500,000) while also making comparable money from real estate that isn’t taxed. For example, Bernard Hickey makes the point today that Luxon will pay $168,260 in income tax on his $484,200 Beehive salary this year, but he’ll pay zero tax on his capital gain of $460,000.
1News challenged Luxon yesterday about whether he thought he should be paying tax on the income from these sales, and he replied: “No, we don’t have capital gains tax in New Zealand… We think it would be bad for New Zealand because you don’t tax your way out of recession.”
With other questions being put to him about his profits from the sales, Luxon responded: “I don’t know what the point of the questioning is” and he explained further: “We don’t believe in a capital gains tax or a wealth tax. We think, for people who actually generate wealth in this country, it’s a massive disincentive.”
He also explained why he sold his Wellington apartment: “I came to politics four years ago. I bought an apartment in October 2020 and then I became Prime Minister. Normally a prime minister would sell their apartment and move into the Premier House. But because there was basic maintenance that needed to be done I couldn’t… Now I’m moving in, and I don’t need the apartment, so I’m selling it. That’s what John Key did when he became Prime Minister.”
RNZ has also reported that the upgrades that have just been undertaken on Premier House could cost up to $200,000. So far, the invoices have amounted to $170,000 for refurbishments and $15,000 for new items for the house.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon speaks to Heather du Plessis-Allan on Newstalk ZB's the Mike Hosking Breakfast show on Tuesday morning about selling his apartment in Wellington. Photo / Michael Craig
Do housing assets give politicians a ‘conflict of interest’?
The Labour Party have accused the Prime Minister of being in a “conflicted position” because of his windfall. Labour’s deputy leader Carmel Sepuloni has connected Luxon’s personal fortunes with his refusal to implement a capital gains tax. She told 1News yesterday that because of his windfall, Luxon “should be willing to have a conversation about a more progressive tax policy”. Sepuloni also hit out at his housing arrangements, saying: “There’s just a general sense of entitlement with the Prime Minister that we have seen.”
Luxon has been reluctant to justify himself to the public on his sale of houses. Last month, when the sale of his Onehunga rental came up, he answered media questions on this with a statement from a spokesperson: “The management of the Luxons’ properties are private matters which are unrelated to Mr Luxon’s capacity as Prime Minister”.
Last year, on TVNZ’s Q+A he also told Jack Tame that his significant property ownership didn’t impact his judgment on housing policy. Yet, interestingly, his colleague, Act leader David Seymour has suggested otherwise.
During the last National-led Government, Seymour didn’t own any property, and he argued that those politicians who do have property are conflicted: “The fact that the average National MP owns 2.2 properties of their own might suggest why they’ve spent a lot of time introducing solutions that you’d almost suspect weren’t supposed to work – because they certainly haven’t.”
Similarly, then Green Party co-leader James Shaw (who at that stage didn’t own a house) said: “The fact that the vast majority of our members of Parliament own multiple properties is quite a good signal for why there isn’t a capital gains tax in this country. There’s very little appetite amongst the National caucus for a proper capital gains tax.”
National Party MPs are the most significant property owners in Parliament. Photo / Mark Mitchell
How many houses do Government MPs and Ministers own?
According to the 2024 “Register of Pecuniary Interests”, the average National MP now owns more than 2.2 properties. In fact, National Party MPs are the most significant property owners in Parliament, with interests in 136 properties, an average of 2.8 per MP. The Act caucus has 28 houses – 2.5 houses on average. NZ First’s caucus has 14 properties – 1.8 each.
In terms of Cabinet ministers, they own 60 houses, meaning, on average, they have a stake in three houses each. Sitting on the top rung, of course, Prime Minister Luxon has until recently owned seven properties – four investment properties, two residential properties in Auckland, and one apartment in Wellington.
The closest behind Luxon is Mark Mitchell, with six properties, again all in Auckland, apart from his Wellington apartment. Shane Jones has the third-largest property empire, with five residential properties in the Far North. Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters declares three properties - a house and land in Northland’s Whananaki and a home in Auckland.
Outside of Cabinet, the National MPs with large numbers of properties are Andrew Bayley (seven properties), Carlos Cheung (six), Penny Simmonds (five), Gerry Brownlee (five), and Barbara Kuriger (five).
Opposition parties own plenty of houses, too. Collectively, the Parliament owns 261 homes, or 2.2 properties each. Of course, the number of dwellings owned varies greatly between MPs. A total of 91 MPs had a stake in more than one property, and 63 had a stake in three or more properties. At the extremes, nine MPs said they own no property, while 10 MPs own seven houses.
The public is right to be suspicious of property-owning politicians
Luxon is free to continue asserting that his considerable property wealth and windfalls have no impact on his approach to housing or taxation. But it’s probably not very convincing to most people. Even those supportive of the Government and happy that Luxon has been financially successful might still suspect his stances on things like capital gains taxes or social housing construction might be impacted by his own financial situation.
Labour should, however, be careful not to be too petty or partisan in their critiques of the Prime Minister on this. After all, many of their own MPs have multiple properties, too – Jenny Salesa owns five. And the story of Ardern, and then Chris Hipkins, ruling out a capital gains tax also should make them pause before they hypocritically accuse Luxon of being self-serving or conflicted.
Yet it does raise a useful question about MPs being so heavily invested in property and whether they therefore try to preserve the status quo because they are personally advantaged by it. MPs are supposed to serve the public interest, not their own self-interest. And so, the concentration of property ownership among MPs and the potential influence this might have on policy decisions, especially in a housing crisis, raises valid concerns about conflicts of interest and erodes public trust.
