November 23, 2025 • 17 mins
Our MPs have stakes in a combined $379 million of property in New Zealand.
A Herald investigation has found that’s an average of $3.16 million across each of our 120 Members of Parliament.
And despite the rumours, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon doesn’t top the list as the most lavish.
Today on The Front Page, NZ Herald data journalist Chris Knox is with us to dive into the numbers, and why it matters.
Follow The Front Page on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can read more about this and other stories in the New Zealand Herald, online at nzherald.co.nz, or tune in to news bulletins across the NZME network.
Host: Chelsea Daniels
Editor/Producer: Richard Martin
Producer: Jane Yee
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Kiyota.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. Rmps have
stakes in a combined three hundred and seventy nine million
dollars worth of property in New Zealand. A Herald investigation
(00:26):
has found that is an average of three point one
six million dollars across each of our one hundred and
twenty members of Parliament, and despite the rumors, Prime Minister
Christopher Luxen doesn't top the list as the most lavish
Today on the front.
Speaker 3 (00:44):
Page ends at Herald.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Data journalist Chris Knox is with us to dive into
the numbers and discuss why it matters. First off, Chris,
what motivated you to investigate and compile this data on
MP's property ownership and what challenges did you face when
(01:06):
gathering this information?
Speaker 1 (01:08):
Well, I guess from the motivation point of view, I
think that it's an important thing to understand what MPs,
how much property they have, and how they may or
may not impact their decision making. It's something that Parliament
kind of recognizes as being important by making MPs to
clear what they have, but they don't actually ask them
(01:30):
to declare what it's worth. So we decided to kind
of take it a little bit a step further and
find out what the property is that they declared were worth,
which is something the Herald had previously done in twenty thirteen.
So we're also sort of it's like, well, you know,
it's been twelve years, let's revisit it and see how
things have changed.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
So you knew where to look.
Speaker 1 (01:52):
Yes, we knew where we were starting from the register.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
Who are the top five and what do they own
and how much is it worth?
Speaker 1 (02:02):
So the total portfolio is worth about three hundred and
eighty million or three seventy nine million, and Sue's redmain
is who's the new national MP for Rangotikei. She as
the top with twenty four about twenty four million, most
of which is a large farm worth eighteen million. Interestingly enough,
(02:25):
she took over assumed office after Ian Mcalvey retired and
he was the previous top so it's obviously farms in
that area are clearly worth quite a bit of money.
He was worth a lot more. I think more like
sixty million if I remember correctly. Oh wow.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
So Luxon is often rumored to have the most significant
property assets. But he came in second, right.
Speaker 1 (02:50):
He did, yes, yes, certainly he had the most significant
residential property assets, so if you exclude farms to come
in first. But yeah, so he has a couple of
houses in Auckland worth about seven million each and one
rental property.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
So who came in at three, four and five?
Speaker 1 (03:10):
So third was another national farming MP, so Barbara Krueger
who's the national MP for the Taranaki king Country. She
has about fourteen and a half million dollars worth of
property or he has declared interest in that, and again
quite a bit of that's farming. Fourth was Cal Bates,
(03:31):
who is the national MP for Wanganui. His situation is
a bit more complicated because previously the Herald revealed that
there were twenty five properties that he has interests in
that he were moved into a trust and he didn't
declare them when he became an MP, and that's now
the subject of a parliamentary inquiry. So I guess his
(03:52):
spot on the list depends on the outcome of the inquiry.
And then fifth on the list was the first non
national MP, Panji Palmer, who's an act MP. Has about
eleven million worth of property in Auckland.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
So some MPs have this complicated property asset interest kind
of thing involving trusts. You've got company shareholdings and things
like that. You just mentioned Old Maiden wangan Nue.
Speaker 1 (04:18):
Was it.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
Why do is trust ownership so prevalent among MPs?
Speaker 1 (04:25):
I don't know if I have a good answer for that.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
Is it just what rich people do?
Speaker 1 (04:30):
I think that's part of it. I think that and
there's a bit of commentary round because I was trying
to work out, like what so I think I found
that there were forty seven MPs that use trusts, which
is over a third, And I was trying to work
out what percentage of New Zealanders used trusts and couldn't
find kind of good numbers on that. There were some
(04:52):
estimates from two thousand and six from IID I believe,
and they were sort of about ten percent. But I
think it's reasonable. It's hum Yeah, the MP usage is higher,
but I think part of that is just that a
lot of MP's have been in business for quite a
long time before they became MPs. Certainly farmers make a
lot of use of trusts, and so I just think
(05:13):
that anyone was kind of subset your property holdings, and
also property holdings that kind of run across multiple family members.
Trusts seem to be the other thing I think is
that trusts were I think this has been some commentary
that trust is sort of overused in New Zealand up
until the rules tightened up after the Panama Papers came
(05:35):
out a few years ago. So I think now there
are costs, so that the costs associated with trusts make
it something that you have to have a real reason
to do, whereas previously it was just kind of why not.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Well, how transparent is the current disclosure regime and do
you think that gives the public a full picture of
an MP's wealth.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
I mean, I guess it's not. The disclosure regime is
not intended to give a picture of their wealth, just
the things they have interests in. I think it's reasonably transparent,
but it does it is a very It assumes good
behavior by the MPs, so there's a very little enforcement
kind of that. There's no like the registrar doesn't check
(06:23):
that MPs have declared things correctly. It's it's kind of
entirely up to them, and it's only when the media
or another party kind of starts digging around that that
things kind of may get referred up to an inquiry,
but it isn't like it's not there's not a process
in place where where so the MP's are given guidance
(06:44):
and then they make I do think that though the
guidance could be tightened up, like I've noticed a lot
like there's quite a bit of variation between different MPs declarations,
Like for example, the national for Ko KOA has declared
an incredible detail all of his shareholdings, and then other
(07:06):
people have sent to follow a much more sort of
vibe based approach, and some MPs are declaring very quite
you know this pay of rental property in this suburb,
and then other MP's are just like residential property in
Auckland and you're like, well, you know, so there's quite
(07:26):
this sort of variation and I think it would be
good to have a bit more consistency in the process.
Speaker 3 (07:38):
It has made up a big part of the election
campaign so far. Your party has repeatedly insinuated that Labor
is planning a capital gains tax. How many houses do
you own? I've been upfront seven houses. There are one
hundred and twenty MP's in Parliament who owns the most houses.
Speaker 1 (07:54):
I have no idea.
Speaker 3 (07:55):
Is there any MP you can name who owns more
houses than you? Don't nijack there any MP you can
name that owns more houses than you. I don't know.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
I don't have a clue who owns what? Why is
it important for MPs to declare property and I guess
other financial interests. What are the parliamentary rules around that
kind of transparency? Basically so they don't go and make decisions.
You know, I've got a house in Coui Culta, for instance,
and there's a big development happening, I have the power
(08:25):
to do something about it, right.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
Yeah. Basically it's to provide transparency about the kind of
parliamentary process. And I think that often I suspect that
that often there's more of a like an assumption of
kind of wrongdoing, you know, like if there's no information,
(08:48):
then it's very easy to kind of start speculating about
what might be behind decisions, Whereas if the information is
out there, then you can just kind of have a
look and be like, Okay, you know that they had
these properties and you know it probably didn't impact it,
or maybe it did. Or It is interesting though that
(09:08):
the local government rules are much stricter in terms of it.
Once you've declared an interest in at least in some
of the local government meetings that I've seen, if you
have a conflict interest, then you actually recruise yourself from
that meeting, whereas at a parliamentary level it's more just
(09:30):
that declared and then it doesn't actually impact you're kind
of your decision making process.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
Should there be better safeguards in place to make sure
that MPs don't make those policy decisions in relation to
what they own or what kind of interests they might have.
Speaker 1 (09:47):
Do you think? I think it would get pretty tricky.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
Because you can, you were, one person can say I've
got shares in New Zealand, and then one person can
say my cousins sister works for New Zealand or something.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
Yeah, I mean, I think that you would land up
with kind of half of the MP's having to recuse
themselves from most you know, so many sort of the
decisions that are made at a national level can have
such a big impact, you know, and like particularly when
you look at the so there was about three million
dollars of property roughly per MP, but if you look
(10:24):
at it per party, then the Act and national MPs
are sitting in more like four and a half million each,
and so that's getting up to be quite a lot
of kind of interest in property. And so then you know,
do you need to get every national and Act MP
to recuse themselves from any decision that might impact property prices?
Which is kind of you know, for all of the
(10:45):
decisions or not quite, but you know, certainly there's a
lot of rules that parliaments can can consider which may
or may not impact property prices.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
Yeah, well, your article mentions restoring mortgage interest deductibility for
landlords is a significant policy change. Obviously, how did you
estimate potential financial impacts for MPs and what did that reveal?
Speaker 1 (11:08):
Yeah, so I was able to look at a number
of MPs who declared that they had rental properties, and
then you can see from records how much they paid
for those properties and how long ago it was. So
and then you have to start making b assumptions, which
is why we didn't name any MPs for this, because
(11:29):
the assumptions. You know, obviously I have no idea what
an individual mpiece loan structure is, but if you kind
of generally, you know, there's a requirement at the moment,
though I think I think there may be some move
a foot to change it, But at the moment, you
need a thirty percent deposit for a rental property or
(11:49):
an investment property. And so if we just assume that
those properties were bought with a loan equal to seventy
percent of the value of the property, that the loan
was set for a thirty year term, and that the
interest rate on average was six percent, it is kind
of roughly what average interest rates over time are. Then
(12:09):
you can go on to something like the sorted mortgage
calculator and see what what the what amount of interest
is being paid after a certain number of years. And
so one MP I looked at after seventeen years of
paying that mortgage, that'd be looking at about fifty thousand
a year in interest payments. And so if and you
(12:34):
can also assume that all MPs are any extra income
they get, it's going to be in the thirty nine
percent tax bracket because it's probably over one hundred and
eighty thousand, and so then they're able to deduct that.
So if they've got extra income, then they can deduct
fifty thousand from their income in the thirty nine percent
(12:54):
tax bracket that's going to be about twenty thousand back.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
Tell me, Chris, why does this all matter?
Speaker 1 (12:59):
Do you think? I think it's just important to understand
where out what our MP's own and what they're doing,
and how those decisions could, how any decisions they make
could impact their personal situations. For example, that the MP's
(13:19):
are sitting on almost two hundred million worth of family
homes and you know, and there's there's constant discussions on
around things like capital gains tax, wealth tax, you know,
which isn't to say, you know, I'm not putting forward
whether any of those things are the right policy, but
I think that that you have to look at an
(13:40):
MP's holdings to really understand how they whether they are
considering those things kind of from looking at a future
like what is the tax structure of New Zealand how
is it going to look going forward? That sort of thing.
Are they actually able to consider things from from kind
(14:00):
of the nation's point of view or are they too
drawn into their own own portfolios?
Speaker 2 (14:10):
And a lot of trust goes with that as well,
and like you said, a lot which we trust people
and especially MPs to just do the right thing.
Speaker 1 (14:17):
Hey, yes, we do, and so, yeah, and I think
that being able to see what they have. The other
thing too, is that it's not you know, being rich
is not necessarily a bad thing, you know, And so
I think if we're it's also good to see what
It gives us a message of where amps have come
(14:37):
from and what they've done, and you can see, you know,
you can see their involvement in farming and that sort
of thing as well. As part of this process.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
When you were digging into the numbers and seeing how
much each person owns and everything, I mean, was there
anyone apart from the top five, say, was there any
other people that stuck out to you that you thought,
huh interesting?
Speaker 1 (15:00):
Not particularly, I mean there was obviously Carl Waits popped
out as there was something interesting going on.
Speaker 2 (15:07):
There because his family ended up being one of the
largest landlords in that area.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
Hey, yes, that certainly looks like there were one of
the largest private landals in his own electorate, which is
an interesting situation to be in, and one I think
that ought to be more transparent. I think actually one
of the things that I was surprised by was that,
compared to the last time the Herald did it the
(15:36):
kind of the headline numbers aren't actually that large. So
for example, I Mcalvey was worth on the era of
about sixty million in twenty thirteen and John Keyes's properties
were worth far more than the primes properties now and
(16:01):
so it's almost like this this twelve years later Parliament
actually and someone says less property holdings than they did previously,
and there was kind of there wasn't anyone whose property
holdings kind of would reach into that sort of mega rich.
(16:21):
Certainly there's some quite wealthy people there, but you know,
there are there are people in New Zealand who own
considerably more than anyone in Parliament.
Speaker 2 (16:32):
Thanks for joining us, Chris North. That's it for this
episode of The Front Page. You can read more about
today's stories and extensive news coverage at enzadherld dot co
dot nz. The Front Page is produced by Jane Ye
and Richard Martin, who is also our editor. I'm Chelsea Daniels.
(16:55):
Subscribe to the Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you
get your podcast, and tune in tomorrow for another look
behind the headlines.
Kiyota.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. Rmps have
stakes in a combined three hundred and seventy nine million
dollars worth of property in New Zealand. A Herald investigation
(00:26):
has found that is an average of three point one
six million dollars across each of our one hundred and
twenty members of Parliament, and despite the rumors, Prime Minister
Christopher Luxen doesn't top the list as the most lavish
Today on the front.
Speaker 3 (00:44):
Page ends at Herald.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Data journalist Chris Knox is with us to dive into
the numbers and discuss why it matters. First off, Chris,
what motivated you to investigate and compile this data on
MP's property ownership and what challenges did you face when
(01:06):
gathering this information?
Speaker 1 (01:08):
Well, I guess from the motivation point of view, I
think that it's an important thing to understand what MPs,
how much property they have, and how they may or
may not impact their decision making. It's something that Parliament
kind of recognizes as being important by making MPs to
clear what they have, but they don't actually ask them
(01:30):
to declare what it's worth. So we decided to kind
of take it a little bit a step further and
find out what the property is that they declared were worth,
which is something the Herald had previously done in twenty thirteen.
So we're also sort of it's like, well, you know,
it's been twelve years, let's revisit it and see how
things have changed.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
So you knew where to look.
Speaker 1 (01:52):
Yes, we knew where we were starting from the register.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
Who are the top five and what do they own
and how much is it worth?
Speaker 1 (02:02):
So the total portfolio is worth about three hundred and
eighty million or three seventy nine million, and Sue's redmain
is who's the new national MP for Rangotikei. She as
the top with twenty four about twenty four million, most
of which is a large farm worth eighteen million. Interestingly enough,
(02:25):
she took over assumed office after Ian Mcalvey retired and
he was the previous top so it's obviously farms in
that area are clearly worth quite a bit of money.
He was worth a lot more. I think more like
sixty million if I remember correctly. Oh wow.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
So Luxon is often rumored to have the most significant
property assets. But he came in second, right.
Speaker 1 (02:50):
He did, yes, yes, certainly he had the most significant
residential property assets, so if you exclude farms to come
in first. But yeah, so he has a couple of
houses in Auckland worth about seven million each and one
rental property.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
So who came in at three, four and five?
Speaker 1 (03:10):
So third was another national farming MP, so Barbara Krueger
who's the national MP for the Taranaki king Country. She
has about fourteen and a half million dollars worth of
property or he has declared interest in that, and again
quite a bit of that's farming. Fourth was Cal Bates,
(03:31):
who is the national MP for Wanganui. His situation is
a bit more complicated because previously the Herald revealed that
there were twenty five properties that he has interests in
that he were moved into a trust and he didn't
declare them when he became an MP, and that's now
the subject of a parliamentary inquiry. So I guess his
(03:52):
spot on the list depends on the outcome of the inquiry.
And then fifth on the list was the first non
national MP, Panji Palmer, who's an act MP. Has about
eleven million worth of property in Auckland.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
So some MPs have this complicated property asset interest kind
of thing involving trusts. You've got company shareholdings and things
like that. You just mentioned Old Maiden wangan Nue.
Speaker 1 (04:18):
Was it.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
Why do is trust ownership so prevalent among MPs?
Speaker 1 (04:25):
I don't know if I have a good answer for that.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
Is it just what rich people do?
Speaker 1 (04:30):
I think that's part of it. I think that and
there's a bit of commentary round because I was trying
to work out, like what so I think I found
that there were forty seven MPs that use trusts, which
is over a third, And I was trying to work
out what percentage of New Zealanders used trusts and couldn't
find kind of good numbers on that. There were some
(04:52):
estimates from two thousand and six from IID I believe,
and they were sort of about ten percent. But I
think it's reasonable. It's hum Yeah, the MP usage is higher,
but I think part of that is just that a
lot of MP's have been in business for quite a
long time before they became MPs. Certainly farmers make a
lot of use of trusts, and so I just think
(05:13):
that anyone was kind of subset your property holdings, and
also property holdings that kind of run across multiple family members.
Trusts seem to be the other thing I think is
that trusts were I think this has been some commentary
that trust is sort of overused in New Zealand up
until the rules tightened up after the Panama Papers came
(05:35):
out a few years ago. So I think now there
are costs, so that the costs associated with trusts make
it something that you have to have a real reason
to do, whereas previously it was just kind of why not.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Well, how transparent is the current disclosure regime and do
you think that gives the public a full picture of
an MP's wealth.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
I mean, I guess it's not. The disclosure regime is
not intended to give a picture of their wealth, just
the things they have interests in. I think it's reasonably transparent,
but it does it is a very It assumes good
behavior by the MPs, so there's a very little enforcement
kind of that. There's no like the registrar doesn't check
(06:23):
that MPs have declared things correctly. It's it's kind of
entirely up to them, and it's only when the media
or another party kind of starts digging around that that
things kind of may get referred up to an inquiry,
but it isn't like it's not there's not a process
in place where where so the MP's are given guidance
(06:44):
and then they make I do think that though the
guidance could be tightened up, like I've noticed a lot
like there's quite a bit of variation between different MPs declarations,
Like for example, the national for Ko KOA has declared
an incredible detail all of his shareholdings, and then other
(07:06):
people have sent to follow a much more sort of
vibe based approach, and some MPs are declaring very quite
you know this pay of rental property in this suburb,
and then other MP's are just like residential property in
Auckland and you're like, well, you know, so there's quite
(07:26):
this sort of variation and I think it would be
good to have a bit more consistency in the process.
Speaker 3 (07:38):
It has made up a big part of the election
campaign so far. Your party has repeatedly insinuated that Labor
is planning a capital gains tax. How many houses do
you own? I've been upfront seven houses. There are one
hundred and twenty MP's in Parliament who owns the most houses.
Speaker 1 (07:54):
I have no idea.
Speaker 3 (07:55):
Is there any MP you can name who owns more
houses than you? Don't nijack there any MP you can
name that owns more houses than you. I don't know.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
I don't have a clue who owns what? Why is
it important for MPs to declare property and I guess
other financial interests. What are the parliamentary rules around that
kind of transparency? Basically so they don't go and make decisions.
You know, I've got a house in Coui Culta, for instance,
and there's a big development happening, I have the power
(08:25):
to do something about it, right.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
Yeah. Basically it's to provide transparency about the kind of
parliamentary process. And I think that often I suspect that
that often there's more of a like an assumption of
kind of wrongdoing, you know, like if there's no information,
(08:48):
then it's very easy to kind of start speculating about
what might be behind decisions, Whereas if the information is
out there, then you can just kind of have a
look and be like, Okay, you know that they had
these properties and you know it probably didn't impact it,
or maybe it did. Or It is interesting though that
(09:08):
the local government rules are much stricter in terms of it.
Once you've declared an interest in at least in some
of the local government meetings that I've seen, if you
have a conflict interest, then you actually recruise yourself from
that meeting, whereas at a parliamentary level it's more just
(09:30):
that declared and then it doesn't actually impact you're kind
of your decision making process.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
Should there be better safeguards in place to make sure
that MPs don't make those policy decisions in relation to
what they own or what kind of interests they might have.
Speaker 1 (09:47):
Do you think? I think it would get pretty tricky.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
Because you can, you were, one person can say I've
got shares in New Zealand, and then one person can
say my cousins sister works for New Zealand or something.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
Yeah, I mean, I think that you would land up
with kind of half of the MP's having to recuse
themselves from most you know, so many sort of the
decisions that are made at a national level can have
such a big impact, you know, and like particularly when
you look at the so there was about three million
dollars of property roughly per MP, but if you look
(10:24):
at it per party, then the Act and national MPs
are sitting in more like four and a half million each,
and so that's getting up to be quite a lot
of kind of interest in property. And so then you know,
do you need to get every national and Act MP
to recuse themselves from any decision that might impact property prices?
Which is kind of you know, for all of the
(10:45):
decisions or not quite, but you know, certainly there's a
lot of rules that parliaments can can consider which may
or may not impact property prices.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
Yeah, well, your article mentions restoring mortgage interest deductibility for
landlords is a significant policy change. Obviously, how did you
estimate potential financial impacts for MPs and what did that reveal?
Speaker 1 (11:08):
Yeah, so I was able to look at a number
of MPs who declared that they had rental properties, and
then you can see from records how much they paid
for those properties and how long ago it was. So
and then you have to start making b assumptions, which
is why we didn't name any MPs for this, because
(11:29):
the assumptions. You know, obviously I have no idea what
an individual mpiece loan structure is, but if you kind
of generally, you know, there's a requirement at the moment,
though I think I think there may be some move
a foot to change it, But at the moment, you
need a thirty percent deposit for a rental property or
(11:49):
an investment property. And so if we just assume that
those properties were bought with a loan equal to seventy
percent of the value of the property, that the loan
was set for a thirty year term, and that the
interest rate on average was six percent, it is kind
of roughly what average interest rates over time are. Then
(12:09):
you can go on to something like the sorted mortgage
calculator and see what what the what amount of interest
is being paid after a certain number of years. And
so one MP I looked at after seventeen years of
paying that mortgage, that'd be looking at about fifty thousand
a year in interest payments. And so if and you
(12:34):
can also assume that all MPs are any extra income
they get, it's going to be in the thirty nine
percent tax bracket because it's probably over one hundred and
eighty thousand, and so then they're able to deduct that.
So if they've got extra income, then they can deduct
fifty thousand from their income in the thirty nine percent
(12:54):
tax bracket that's going to be about twenty thousand back.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
Tell me, Chris, why does this all matter?
Speaker 1 (12:59):
Do you think? I think it's just important to understand
where out what our MP's own and what they're doing,
and how those decisions could, how any decisions they make
could impact their personal situations. For example, that the MP's
(13:19):
are sitting on almost two hundred million worth of family
homes and you know, and there's there's constant discussions on
around things like capital gains tax, wealth tax, you know,
which isn't to say, you know, I'm not putting forward
whether any of those things are the right policy, but
I think that that you have to look at an
(13:40):
MP's holdings to really understand how they whether they are
considering those things kind of from looking at a future
like what is the tax structure of New Zealand how
is it going to look going forward? That sort of thing.
Are they actually able to consider things from from kind
(14:00):
of the nation's point of view or are they too
drawn into their own own portfolios?
Speaker 2 (14:10):
And a lot of trust goes with that as well,
and like you said, a lot which we trust people
and especially MPs to just do the right thing.
Speaker 1 (14:17):
Hey, yes, we do, and so, yeah, and I think
that being able to see what they have. The other
thing too, is that it's not you know, being rich
is not necessarily a bad thing, you know, And so
I think if we're it's also good to see what
It gives us a message of where amps have come
(14:37):
from and what they've done, and you can see, you know,
you can see their involvement in farming and that sort
of thing as well. As part of this process.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
When you were digging into the numbers and seeing how
much each person owns and everything, I mean, was there
anyone apart from the top five, say, was there any
other people that stuck out to you that you thought,
huh interesting?
Speaker 1 (15:00):
Not particularly, I mean there was obviously Carl Waits popped
out as there was something interesting going on.
Speaker 2 (15:07):
There because his family ended up being one of the
largest landlords in that area.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
Hey, yes, that certainly looks like there were one of
the largest private landals in his own electorate, which is
an interesting situation to be in, and one I think
that ought to be more transparent. I think actually one
of the things that I was surprised by was that,
compared to the last time the Herald did it the
(15:36):
kind of the headline numbers aren't actually that large. So
for example, I Mcalvey was worth on the era of
about sixty million in twenty thirteen and John Keyes's properties
were worth far more than the primes properties now and
(16:01):
so it's almost like this this twelve years later Parliament
actually and someone says less property holdings than they did previously,
and there was kind of there wasn't anyone whose property
holdings kind of would reach into that sort of mega rich.
(16:21):
Certainly there's some quite wealthy people there, but you know,
there are there are people in New Zealand who own
considerably more than anyone in Parliament.
Speaker 2 (16:32):
Thanks for joining us, Chris North. That's it for this
episode of The Front Page. You can read more about
today's stories and extensive news coverage at enzadherld dot co
dot nz. The Front Page is produced by Jane Ye
and Richard Martin, who is also our editor. I'm Chelsea Daniels.
(16:55):
Subscribe to the Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you
get your podcast, and tune in tomorrow for another look
behind the headlines.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.