Heather du Plessis-Allan: We have a fascination with prime ministers and their money

We've got a fascination with prime ministers and their money, it turns out.  

Last night 1News did the calculation that Christopher Luxon stands to make $480,000 off the sale of his apartment in Wellington —he's moving out because he's going over to Premier House— and also a rental property that he's selling in South Auckland.  

Now the implication of the story was that Christopher Luxon's making too much money off these properties, and he should be taxed.  

Over the weekend, a newspaper in Wellington also reported that Jacinda Ardern is earning $316,000 per appearance every time she speaks on the international speaking circuit, and the implication there was —certainly in commentary afterwards— that it's unethical for her to be doing that. It's damaging her reputation by showing that she really does love money over doing good after all. And if prime ministers keep on doing stuff like this, how do we know that they're actually making the right decisions when they are in power and not thinking about what kind of money they're gonna earn afterwards?  

Now, look, I don't mind the fascination with prime ministers and former prime ministers' earnings. I think it's completely human nature to be into it. We're fascinated by what our colleagues earn, right? So why wouldn't we be fascinated by what Luxon and Ardern earn? However, that is where I think it should stop – at fascination.  

There's nothing wrong with Jacinda Ardern earning that much money off the speaking circuit. Frankly, if we're honest about it, talking was about the only thing she was actually good at, and she'd be a fool not to take that kind of money if it's on offer.  

Same goes for Luxon. He was a well-paid businessman before politics. You would expect him to have plenty of money, you would expect him to put some of that money into property. And unless things have gone very bad for him in his calculations, you would expect him to make money off a property, especially one that he has apparently renovated. Nothing wrong here.  

To suggest that Luxon's capital gain on his property is evidence that we need a capital gains tax and to suggest that Jacinda's speaking circuit means that we need to put some sort of restraint of trade on future prime ministers is just taking it a bit far, isn't it?  

It's fine to be fascinated, just leave it at that. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
So we've got a fascination with prime ministers and their money,
it turns out, and last news last night One News
did the calculation that Christopher Luxon stands to make four
hundred and eighty thousand dollars off the sale of his
apartment in Wellington he's moving out because he's going over
to Premier House, and also also a rental property that
he's selling in South Auckland. Now, the implication of the
story was basically, Christopher Luxen's making too much money off

(00:21):
these properties, he should be taxed. Over the weekend, a
newspaper in Wellington also reported that Jacinda Rdurn is earning
three hundred and sixteen thousand dollars per appearance every time
she speaks on the international speaking circuit, and the implication
there was certainly in commentary afterwards, that it's unethical for
her to be doing that. It's damaging her reputation by

(00:43):
showing that she really does love money over doing good
after all, and if prime ministers keep on doing stuff
like this, how do we know that they're actually making
the right decisions when they are in power and not
thinking about what kind of money they're going to earn afterwards. Now, Look,
I don't mind the fascination with prime minister's and former
prime minister's earnings. I think it's completely human nature to
be into it, and well, we're fascinated by what our
colleagues earned, right, so why wouldn't we be fascinated by

(01:05):
what Luxin and a durn earn. However, that is where
I think it should stop at fascination. There's nothing wrong
with Jasinda Ardun earning that much money off the speaking circuit. Frankly,
if we're honest about it, talking was about the only
thing she was actually good at, and she'd be a
fool not to take that kind of money if it's
on offer. Same goes for Luxon. He was a well
paid businessman before politics. You would expect him to have

(01:26):
plenty of money. You would expect him to put some
of that money into property, and unless things have gone
very bad for him in his calculations, you would expect
him to make money off a property, especially one that
he has apparently renovated. Nothing wrong here to suggest that
Luckson's capital gain on his property is evidence that we
need a capital gains tax, And to suggest that just
in the speaking circuit means that we need to put

(01:47):
some sort of restraint of trade on future PROME ministers.
Is just taking it a bit far, isn't it. I mean,
it's fine to be fascinated, just leave it at that.
For more from The mic Asking Breakfast listen live to
news talks that'd be from six am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio