I think I can explain what’s going on, writes Joel MacManus.

Green MP Tamatha Paul has caused something of a kerfuffle this week by refusing to apologise for claiming that several government MPs had bought new rental properties after changing property tax rules and rental laws. 

Paul accused National MP Grant McCallum of something a bit different – purchasing a property in Wellington in order to take advantage of the accommodation allowance for MPs. He didn’t – he bought a second home in Paihia. He asked her for an apology, which she declined to give. 

National MPs Shane Reti and Tom Rutherford and Act MP Parmjeet Parmar also cried foul – all three of them now own more properties than they did three years ago, but they didn’t exactly “buy” them since changing the rules, as Paul claimed.

The whole thing is very messy and I can’t help but feel that it’s partially my fault. Paul delivered the speech that kicked this all off in parliament on August 19 – it later went viral after she posted a clip of it on TikTok – and cited The Spinoff as the source of her claims. But she seems to have misinterpreted some of the details.

Earlier this year, I spent a lot of time looking into the pecuniary interests register, where MPs list their major investment holdings. By comparing this year’s register against the 2023 version – plus a whole bunch of fact-checking – I calculated that MPs from the three government parties have acquired at least 25 new rentals, investment properties or second homes during this parliamentary term. Members of the opposition did not list any extra investment properties, though two MPs listed additional “family homes”. 

I was careful about avoiding the word “bought”, instead using the awkward phrasing of “acquired”, because the pecuniary interest register doesn’t state how an MP got their hands on the property, just the number of properties they own. 

Before publishing, I approached the most notable property-acquirers for comments. And it’s a good thing I did, because some of the information in the register would have put me wrong. For example, the four new homes on speaker Gerry Brownlee’s report turned out to be properties he had owned for years but had failed to previously declare. 

Parmjeet Parmar told me her five additional investment properties were built, not bought; she redeveloped two homes she already owned into seven new units (hence why Act was right to claim today she hasn’t brought a single property since the coalition came to power). And Tom Rutherford has since clarified that his additional property was one his wife owned before they were married, which is now listed as a rental. So it’s accurate to say that both of these MPs acquired new investment properties after the government’s pro-landlord reforms, though not accurate to say that they bought them. 

In a separate story, I looked into the MPs who had purchased properties in Wellington and rented them back to themselves using a taxpayer-funded accommodation supplement. Seven non-Wellington MPs bought new properties in Wellington this term, allowing them to take advantage of this loophole. The most eyebrow-raising example was NZ First MP Andy Foster, a longtime Wellingtonian and former mayor who bought a home in the Wairarapa, then claimed that he was a non-Wellington MP, even though he still owns his longtime family home in Wellington. He claimed the allowance to live in his Wellington home.

It seems that Paul conflated these two stories when she claimed that National MP Grant McCallum bought an apartment in Wellington to rent to himself. He didn’t – but he did purchase a second home in Paihia, which he listed on the register as a “private home”, not a rental. As for the rest, she was a bit too loose with her phrasing by claiming that MPs had “bought” investment properties, and could have used another word to be more accurate. 

All of this is to say that truth can get technical. As journalists, we have to choose our words carefully to avoid inaccuracy, which can occasionally lead to weird phrasing that no normal human would ever use. Politicians have a bit more freedom; it’s much harder for them to get fired, and they can’t be sued for defamation for anything said in the debating chamber.

I got in touch with Tamatha Paul today to point out the error and get her thoughts, and she provided the following statement:

“The property industry donated almost $2.5 million to National, Act and NZ First during the 2023 election, which was followed by a $2.9 billion tax cut for landlords. The government brought back no-cause evictions for renters and cut thousands of planned public housing builds, all while their own housing portfolios increased.”

“My speech was about a new report showing how renters’ lives have not improved since rental laws changed, yet the decision makers who changed the laws have made the most of it at the expense of renters. Obviously this has resonated with New Zealanders who can see that the government represents the mega wealthy, multi property owning minority which is so far out of reach from most New Zealanders.“

Paul, it seems fair to say, remains focused on the big picture, and less on “bought” versus “acquired”.