Hard News: Costly indeed
308 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 13 Newer→ Last
-
Yeah, can we have a moratorium on gratuitous evocations of Nazism please? I mean, Jim Anderton is Goebbels? Or Hitler? I fear, Craig, that in the search for the pungent phrase you may have lost your sense of perspective somewhat.
Stephen: *sigh* I was trying to make a serious point, while taking the piss out of Russell implying Graeme was comparing Anderton to a concentration camp guard. Shouldn't have mixed up the two, granted.
But I'm going to make no apologies for presuming any politicians trying to spin their troughing as "I was just following official advice" is pure bullshit, until documentary evidence to the contrary is produced. Because, hey, we're never seen politicians distort, misrepresent, elide, egregiously spin or outright lie about advice they've received before. And we've never seen politically inconvenient civil servants or advisors who go off message subject to smears and character assassination by politicians and their proxies in the on-line sewers.
I guess all that is much easier when you have a professional, non-partisan civil service that takes their legal and ethical responsibilities extremely seriously. And part of that is biting your tongue, hard, when you're dragged into political arguments or political damage control.
But I'm sorry, I can't square the circle here where both Ririnui and Ministerial Services are right.
Mr Ririnui says he was told personal use was acceptable, providing reimbursements were made on time - which he did.
He says he would never have used the card for personal items if he had known it was outside the rules.
But Ministerial Services says no minister would ever have been given the advice that ministerial credit cards could be used for personal spending.
It says the rules are categorical that, even if the money is repaid, ministerial credit cards should never be used for personal use.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2010/06/11/124809c92d15
-
Although that will work, I can see why reimbursement would have been the practice.
A lot of hotels will only take bookings with a Credit Card confirmation, as you sort of point out. Surely the person (they have PAs, by and large) organising it could have a ministerial CC number, with pre-approved expenditure for hotels for the duration of the stay?
If they're racking up more than 10,000 per trip on daily expenses, then clearly they have a different idea or 'reasonable expenditure' than I do.
Toblerone
I was once given two of these. I couldn't eat it for several years afterwards. But I like it again now.
I understand that posts such as this are permissible here on Fridays.
Oh, so that's my problem? I didn't get that memo.
-
As I noted, Heatley's spending -- including a family holiday -- seems much harder to explain that Anderton's. I cannot imagine that the auditor general would find any case against Anderton having waved through Heatley.
A difference might be that Heatley was a moron, and didn't know that what he was spending money on was stuff on which money was not allowed to be spent, but that Anderton knew the rules prohibited the spending of money in the manner he spent it, but did it anyway. In respect of this, the fact he paid it back immediately actually incriminates him.
Anyway, as I have said elsewhere, I haven't been particularly engaged with this whole issue, but now that I think about it, it may in some circumstances constitute an offence, and the more I think about the worse that becomes.
It was made repeatedly clear to everyone that ministerial credit cards may never ever be used for personal expenses, even on an advance basis. Yes, it might be a bit complicated at an overseas hotel to pay for separate things separately, but MPs seem to manage just fine without Government credit cards, so I don't see why Ministers can't.
I don't know the full facts of every case, but on the use of ministerial credit cards it appears to have been repeatedly made clear. It is not within the scope of the appropriation to use the money to make a loan to a Minister. It is not within the scope of the appropriation to pay for personal items. Ministers know this. Doing it is illegal, and it is an offence. The other types of "rort" that have been going on - parliamentary allowances, housing, etc. - may not be as crystal clear. I don't know how Healtey's holiday was paid for - it may well have been an abuse of his Parliamentary travel allowance, rather than his ministerial credit card, etc.
But if there were or are ministers who have deliberately used departmental credit cards to pay for personal items they knew were not allowed to be paid for with departmental money (and it occurred within the the last two years), then I would quite like them charged under the Public Finance Act.
The offence, even if they are convicted and jailed for it, is not so serious that they would automatically lose their jobs as MPs, but they knew it was illegal and they did it anyway. I'd quite like them held to account.
-
Not so, unless something has changed recently: the bills are paid from Vote:Ministerial Services. Ministry officials travelling with a Minister woud be a charge to the Ministry, yes.
That'll learn me to rely on media reports.
-
A further Friday post (sorry if I'm not doing this correctly, but I'm rather new at it) here's an interesting take on the BP spill:
-
I was once given two of these.
And now I know what to get Robyn for Christmas.
-
"Pigs in the trough"?!
I think the image of journalists rummaging around in the screeds of documents for weeks on end is kinda reminiscent of the same thing.
-
frontbotties, people, frontbotties
-
Fair enough, Graeme, I do understand your point, although I don't think Anderton was acting in bad faith.
But would you agree that it got a bit silly this morning when Chris Carter was being harangued by Kathryn Ryan over limousine hire in Australia?
It seemed to me that someone should try and falsify his apparently reasonable explanation that hiring these cars was a stipulation of his Australian government hosts before accusing him of stealing from the taxpayer. This does not appear to have been a personal expense at all.
-
A lot of hotels will only take bookings with a Credit Card confirmation, as you sort of point out.
That's true, as far as it goes. But while I don't exactly live the suite life, the last time we were in Sydney I made a couple of long toll calls from our hotel room I didn't feel happy putting on my partner's credit card. I didn't have any problem separating them out and paying cash. (The desk clerk also showed Jeeves-like sang froid when I turned fish-belly white and muttered something quite ungentlemanly.)
Question for the jet-setters out there: Is it really that hard for a business traveller to separate out (and pay) personal charges from a hotel bill, or -- like so much else in life -- only as difficult as you choose to make it?
-
Maybe it's me...but I can't seem to get particularly energised over this matter. It probably shouldn't have happened, though I can understand why it might have...and I have already said I have no problem with the rules being amended in favour of being able to reimburse the coffers. By all means ensure it doesn't get out of hand and kept within boundaries.
But 'troughing'? Flowers, videos, a spa...troughing? Just pay it back when ya get home.
We spend over two hundred thousand supporting a MP's ability to run off at the mouth and quibble about chocolate from the mini bar?
*sigh* -
And now I know what to get Robyn for Christmas.
Less than 3 grams of salt in every bar, and containing 100% of the sugars your body needs to get through a busy 135 days!
Very thoughtful of you.
-
Wellington, June 11 NZPA - Prime Minister John Key was keen today to point out that trade and foreign affairs ministers, from both sides of the political spectrum, were likely to spend more because of their roles.
"It comes with the territory, we're often trying to sign up a trade deal," he told reporters.
"At one point it might be a bit ridiculous to ask a minister to start telling the other minister that he's entertaining to go halves on the bill."
Mr Key said the public understood that.
Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully agreed and said there was "absolutely not" anything he had to pay back.
"New Zealand is a country that earns its way through trade and investment, tourism, we need to be out there waving our flag and from time to time that means some hospitality."
That has always been the practice and should not be changed, he said.
Mr McCully said he was happy to defend expenditure made in his name, his staff have credit cards not him, and believed it was clear what was and was not a legitimate expense.
Media sensationalism over reporting was not helpful, he said.
-
A lot of hotels will only take bookings with a Credit Card confirmation, as you sort of point out. Surely the person (they have PAs, by and large) organising it could have a ministerial CC number, with pre-approved expenditure for hotels for the duration of the stay?
What was basically what happened, I think. The minister wasn't necessarily the party carrying the card.
If they're racking up more than 10,000 per trip on daily expenses, then clearly they have a different idea or 'reasonable expenditure' than I do.
$100 per diems are pretty standard in the private sector (on the low side, really). Three people on a month long visit to Europe = $10,000.
-
Prime Minister John Key was keen today to point out that trade and foreign affairs ministers, from both sides of the political spectrum, were likely to spend more because of their roles.
"It comes with the territory, we're often trying to sign up a trade deal," he told reporters.
"At one point it might be a bit ridiculous to ask a minister to start telling the other minister that he's entertaining to go halves on the bill."
Mr Key said the public understood that.
Um, and the winner of this year's Nobel Prize for Stating the Bleeding Obvious is...
OK, snark aside, I'm sure the Prime Minister is prefectly well aware that the revelation that the Foreign Affairs and Trade Ministers run up substantial travel bills was greeted with general indifference.
And, to be blunt, the third par was just silly. Who the hell is suggesting that Grosser or Murray McCully should go dutch on official dinners? I'd respectfully suggest that if Key was currently an executive at Merill Lynch, he'd still be entertaining but also quietly encouraged to lay off the four-figure end of the wine list and not be seen staggering out of Antoine's the night after you've hand-delivered a stack of pink slips and told the survivors to forget about a pay rise in this lifetime.
-
Stuff's rolling update is getting petty.
They're now leading with David Cunliffe and a staff member staying a night in separate rooms at the Westbury Hotel in London at a cost of $1470.
If they'd checked, they would have found that at the exchange rate of the time that amounted to half the book rate for a basic double room, without meals.
It appears that Cunliffe neither chose the hotel or booked the rooms.
Presenting it as evidence of personal trough-gobbling is cheap and deceitful. I disagree with John Armstrong: I think the news media have been petty over a good part of this.
-
$100 per diems are pretty standard in the private sector (on the low side, really). Three people on a month long visit to Europe = $10,000.
NZD100 won't get you very far for a day in Europe. Given that the exchange rate sits around the 0.5 mark, that's EUR50 to try and feed yourself, including tips, without resorting to dining at McD's. If you're in the UK, it's even worse.
-
And, to be blunt, the third par was just silly. Who is hell is suggesting that Grosser or Murray McCully should go dutch on official dinners?
I think some of the reportage has very much leaned that way, actually. See the Cunliffe item above,
-
I disagree with John Armstrong: I think the news media have been petty over a good part of this.
My favourite is still Helen's $20 gumboots when visiting flood-damaged parts of the Bay of Plenty. If that was the sole margin-call charge on her ministerial credit card in the last five years of Labour's term, that's financial probity worthy of a monk. Especially since I, personally, would call that a totally reasonable work-related expense.
-
Question for the jet-setters out there: Is it really that hard for a business traveller to separate out (and pay) personal charges from a hotel bill, or -- like so much else in life -- only as difficult as you choose to make it?
I used to travel a lot for work and it's not that hard to do once in a while. But when you travel a lot that would get pretty tedious. Personally I paid using my own card and invoiced my customers as appropriate. That way I didn't have to worry about odd line item on my hotel bill (not that there ever where any <cough>).
If these personal expenses that were put on the official card were paid back as a matter of course, I just don't see the issue. There was no gain by the ministers - just an easier and, probably more importantly, faster way to pay the bill at checkout.
-
Presenting it as evidence of personal trough-gobbling is cheap and deceitful. I disagree with John Armstrong: I think the news media have been petty over a good part of this.
I actually agree with you on that. The Daily Telegraph did some very solid reporting on the UK expenses scandal, but that was (almost) outweighed by some damn nasty dead horse flogging. Which I didn't really understand, because getting to the bottom of the real squalor (most of which just wouldn't be possible here, to be fair) would have a kept a Phil Kitchin filing copy daily for months.
-
"Snouts in Troughs". Somebody remind me again why I should temper my belief that the Dominion Post doesn't meet minimum standards to qualify as a newspaper?
-
"Snouts in Troughs". Somebody remind me again why I should temper my belief that the Dominion Post doesn't meet minimum standards to qualify as a neswpaper?
The porcine community certainly did nothing to deserve such a vicious display of hate speech.
-
Oh, I give up.
-
Makes two of us.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.