Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Or rather, I wouldn't. I actually do in his case, since his shtick is privatisation and he couldn't expect that perk from a wholly privatised Air NZ.
It's not a perk from Air NZ. The Government picks up the full tab. They don't even have to use Air NZ.
-
I notice the pale burghers of Howick managed to get the name of the new super-city ward they were part of changed from Te Irirangi to - you guessed it - Howick. I suppose at least they'll be able to pronounce it proper.
A victory for democracy, apparently.
From Pansy Wong's most recent electorate news email:
Together we did it
Last Wednesday was a great day for democracy.
What started as quiet rumblings around the dining tables and water coolers of our patch was last week debated in the House of Representatives. The ward and board formally known as Te Irirangi will now be called Howick.
This is no small accomplishment for the residents of our patch. It has been almost 20 years since Parliament last stepped in to change the name of a local body. In that instance the Lower Hutt City (Name of City Council) Act 1991 gave the territorial authority the name The Hutt City Council. One has to go back almost 30 years to the Education Amendment Act 1982 (No 2) to find an instance of Parliament intervening to change a name at board level - this is indeed a rare event.
The past three months have been a fantastic demonstration of how a motivated and passionate group of people can work together to effect change. I was there at the extraordinary public meeting when concerned residents stood up to make their voices heard. The local community boards listened and resolved to jointly reject the name Te Irirangi.
I took a keen interest in the results of the local surveys and petitions which polled public opinion. It was also great to see the younger generation, like Dan Callum, adding their voice through a dedicated Facebook page.
Special recognition should be given to our local newspaper, the Times, who took on this issue in a way which reflected the strong feeling within the community. The ‘our place, our name' campaign helped to make clear that the community wanted the name Howick above all others.
I have been very impressed with the sensible and organised steps taken by councillors, community board members and other leaders in the community and I was very pleased to stand in Parliament together with Pakuranga MP Maurice Williamson and advocate for the name change. It was surprising that the change was not supported by the Labour party who argued and ultimately voted against the overwhelming public opinion.
Despite the challenges we have succeeded. The voice of our patch was heard and true democracy won the day. I am, as always, very proud to represent our patch.
It's been a biggish local deal for a while.
From an earlier Botany Pansy Speak:
D-Day looming for Te Irirangi
On Monday the Auckland Governance Legislation Select Committee reported back to the house on the third and final piece of legislation required to set up the one Auckland City. With the Bill's emergence from the select committee phase the remaining parliamentary process will unravel over the next couple of weeks.
Part of this process will be a committee debate in the house during which I will convey the strong feeling of our patch. I have received a strong and clear message from residents that they would prefer the name of the new ward and local board to be Howick rather than Te Irirangi and that is the message that I will be delivering in Parliament.
I will do everything I can to effect this change for all residents of Howick, Pakuranga and Botany.
-
So how come the emphasis on Labour? ... As for National, who knows who pays their expenses.
National ministers' credit card expense details were released months ago. It was following a fulsome release of National's expenses that Labour's were requested (OIA requests about Labour's credit card expenditure during its term of office only ever got responses giving the totals spent by each minister, not what it was spent on).
-
The only question I have over all this is "What don't they want us to know about, Why this big smokescreen?"
And the simple answer. The passage, in 1982, of the Official Information Act.
From the Dominion Post:
Nobody imagined four months ago that a simple one-sentence request would result in boxloads of political scandal.
In February, The Dominion Post requested all details of spending on ministerial credit cards. The response that came back was unexpectedly detailed. It led to Phil Heatley's resignation as housing minister and to an inquiry by the auditor-general.
The Heatley scandal sparked dozens of requests to the Internal Affairs Department. The 7000 pages of detail, prepared by three officials working fulltime, landed in seven boxes yesterday. Some ministers distinguished themselves by the size of their records – Chris Carter's is eight fingers thick.
-
You're missing the point of ... the PFA: it is that public expenditure must be authorised ... not that private expenditure is prohibited.
I quote this bit, from the rules governing the use of the public money from Vote Ministerial Services:
Operational resources are not provided and may not be used-
(a) for personal or private benefit -
So now it's all about semantics and the finer points of book-keeping? That's good, because I don't really care about that.
Not at all - my point was that the semantic argument others were tempted to use - that this mightn't fall within a technical definition of spending, so wasn't illegal - was bound to fail, not least because the word "spending" is irrelevant.
(Among other things, I'm sure) it is about the following:
Were ministers allowed to use a ministerial credit card in the manner in which they did?
If not, was that use improper?
-
Still, saying that he's spent five dollars would stretch the definition of "spending" somewhat.
Ahh, but there is no definition of spending.
We have section 4:
The Crown ... must not incur expenses ... except as expressly authorised by an appropriation, or other authority, by or under an Act.
And s 76(2)(d):
Every person commits an offence against this Act who—
(d) Does any act for the purpose of procuring for that person or for any other person or organisation—
(i) The improper payment of any public money or trust money; or
(ii) The improper use of any public financial resource.It will still involve the incurring of unauthorised expenditure, but the question of criminal liability will turn on "payment", or "use". But I quite like the argument.
-
They needed a person who came out clean in the 'audit' to front the coverage
Don't think Helen and Mike would taking that call.
When Jim Anderton called in to Q+A, they should have interviewed him live over the 'phone.
-
Perhaps the reporter that spent a year with the Baltimore Police provided a lot more on the criminals etc?
I haven't seen every episode yet, but Homicide: Life on the Street seems very cop-centric (as I imagine "Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets" was as well).
-
You're missing the point of both the BofR and the PFA: it is that public expenditure must be authorised (and, as a corollary, the diversion of public monies for private benefit is an offence), not that private expenditure is prohibited.
Where is the authorisation of spending on golf clubs?
But could I be cynical enough to suggest that various persons in Parliament who were quite happy to impugn the A-G's grasp of the law when expressing "our view" on *cough* various other matters shouldn't be allowed to cling to this too hard.
Different Auditor-General. The old one was awesome (seriously - if you ever get the chance to hear a public lecture by him take it up).