An informative exposé thank you Bryce. Completely agree that we all "deserve representatives who lead on integrity". Such underhand obfuscation is appalling, legal or not. Also generally galling are the crocodile tears about non affordability of housing followed by a great cheer when the "market improves".
Oh, so he's a National MP. Now I get it. If you wish to discuss ethics, then how about the ethics of being voted in democratically, yet not accepting that and simply attacking him because you disagree with his politics? If he's able to do it legally, why shouldn't he? You're merely attempting to besmirch the man's man because of his politics. That's your ethics. Ethical discourse, especially in politics, should aim higher: it should scrutinise policies, decisions, and their impacts, rather than personalities. If someone’s acting within the law and the bounds of their role, then the debate should be about whether those laws or roles serve the public good—not about vilifying the person. 25 houses indeed.
So, to be clear, your position is that any MP elected democratically should be immune from criticism about their personal ethical conduct?
Let's set party tribalism aside. The ethical failing isn't which side of the house or number of houses; it's the choice to hide that number. A similar criticism can be levelled at any MP from any party who obfuscates their assets. Defending this opacity as some high-minded principle is a curious hill to die on.
Ron, I appreciate your concern for transparency, but your phrasing—“let’s be clear” and “a curious hill to die on”—carries a whiff of intellectual snobbery that distracts from the substance of your argument. These aren’t neutral expressions; they signal a kind of rhetorical superiority that shuts down genuine discourse rather than inviting it.
You ask whether MPs should be immune from criticism. Of course not. But criticism should be proportionate, principled, and policy-focused—not laced with insinuations that someone’s personal success or property ownership is inherently unethical. If the issue is disclosure, then let’s discuss disclosure standards. But framing it as moral failure while brushing aside the legality and democratic legitimacy of the individual feels more like tribal point-scoring than ethical inquiry.
If we’re serious about ethics in politics, then let’s raise the bar—not just for politicians, but for how we debate their actions.
You opened by dismissing my view as 'nonsense' and making a personal insult.
I responded with a substantive argument.
You then complained about the tone of my substantive argument.
This is not a good-faith pattern. If you'd like to discuss the actual issue, the ethics of obfuscation and policy contradiction without the personal attacks, I'm here for it. Otherwise, we're done.
An excellent resource thankyou Bryce. If we ever get an individual wealth tax of whatever kind it will require an assessment of beneficial ownership of all assets regardless of how they are held. Maybe the IR should be researching this issue especially for residential housing. If individual have to declare all such ownership for a new net equity/ wealth tax (or risk fraud prosecution) maybe the political transparency problem would disappear?
An informative exposé thank you Bryce. Completely agree that we all "deserve representatives who lead on integrity". Such underhand obfuscation is appalling, legal or not. Also generally galling are the crocodile tears about non affordability of housing followed by a great cheer when the "market improves".
Over-reacted nonsense, Ron. You think you're holier than thou.
It would be a shame if he had more money than you, wouldn't it!
I believe we were discussing ethics, not net worth. Perhaps you missed the point.
Oh, so he's a National MP. Now I get it. If you wish to discuss ethics, then how about the ethics of being voted in democratically, yet not accepting that and simply attacking him because you disagree with his politics? If he's able to do it legally, why shouldn't he? You're merely attempting to besmirch the man's man because of his politics. That's your ethics. Ethical discourse, especially in politics, should aim higher: it should scrutinise policies, decisions, and their impacts, rather than personalities. If someone’s acting within the law and the bounds of their role, then the debate should be about whether those laws or roles serve the public good—not about vilifying the person. 25 houses indeed.
So, to be clear, your position is that any MP elected democratically should be immune from criticism about their personal ethical conduct?
Let's set party tribalism aside. The ethical failing isn't which side of the house or number of houses; it's the choice to hide that number. A similar criticism can be levelled at any MP from any party who obfuscates their assets. Defending this opacity as some high-minded principle is a curious hill to die on.
Ron, I appreciate your concern for transparency, but your phrasing—“let’s be clear” and “a curious hill to die on”—carries a whiff of intellectual snobbery that distracts from the substance of your argument. These aren’t neutral expressions; they signal a kind of rhetorical superiority that shuts down genuine discourse rather than inviting it.
You ask whether MPs should be immune from criticism. Of course not. But criticism should be proportionate, principled, and policy-focused—not laced with insinuations that someone’s personal success or property ownership is inherently unethical. If the issue is disclosure, then let’s discuss disclosure standards. But framing it as moral failure while brushing aside the legality and democratic legitimacy of the individual feels more like tribal point-scoring than ethical inquiry.
If we’re serious about ethics in politics, then let’s raise the bar—not just for politicians, but for how we debate their actions.
Let's recap:
You opened by dismissing my view as 'nonsense' and making a personal insult.
I responded with a substantive argument.
You then complained about the tone of my substantive argument.
This is not a good-faith pattern. If you'd like to discuss the actual issue, the ethics of obfuscation and policy contradiction without the personal attacks, I'm here for it. Otherwise, we're done.
An excellent resource thankyou Bryce. If we ever get an individual wealth tax of whatever kind it will require an assessment of beneficial ownership of all assets regardless of how they are held. Maybe the IR should be researching this issue especially for residential housing. If individual have to declare all such ownership for a new net equity/ wealth tax (or risk fraud prosecution) maybe the political transparency problem would disappear?
" If we ever get an individual wealth tax..." Are you a communist?
You just don't get it, Ron. We're done!