Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
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.
-
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.
-
do you nonetheless suspect it's true that Anderton was instructed to pay in the manner he did?
Perhaps, but by whom? Because that person will have been breaking the law. It may also be the case that this is an absolute liability offence (i.e. if it can be proved to be improper, if you did the act you broke the law). And even if it's true, I'm not sure I care.
And let's not forget that during some of this time, Anderton was the Deputy Prime Minister. "I was just following orders" rings a little hollow.
If Heatley was cleared on the basis of ignorance, it would appear that Anderton has a rather stronger claim than that.
I'm not so sure. Although I'll note for a start that "I wasn't sure whether I was allowed it so I took it anyway" isn't a particularly endearing defence. There may be a difference between "I thought this proper spending, although I was wrong because the rules were unclear" and "I knew this wasn't allowed, but I was told it was much easier, and I intended to and did pay it back quick smart." (although I'm not sure which applies to which case).
There were numerous advisory memos going out that it was never ever acceptable to pay for private expenses with government money. Paying for something that you think is a government expense, but isn't, is different from paying for something you know is a private expense, but you intend to cover personally, in light of such recurrent advise.
-
With all due and sincere respect to you, I'm sooo over hearing "but I reimbursed the money". What fucking part of this card is not to be used for personal expenditure is hard for people like Len Brown and Anderton to get their heads around?
I've been thinking about writing a post, and may still, but Craig has latched onto the simple point.
These card are administered by Ministerial Services, but the bill goes to the applicable ministry. Ministries, and the Government in General, may only spend money that Parliament has given them permission to spend (in budget legislation) and may only spend it on what Parliament has given them permission to spend it on. This goes back to the Bill of Rights 1688 and is a pretty fundamental component of parliamentary democracy.
Making improper use of a public financial resource, or procuring the improper use of public money (e.g. knowingly spending it on something outside the scope of an appropriation, even with the intention of repaying) is an offence against the Public Finance Act punishable by up to a year in prison.
-
This week's Media7 takes two themes.
I've been meaning to ask this for a while ... why does Media7 almost always start early? For the last couple of months, my FreeVo (which starts recording 2-3 minutes before the appointed time) has missed the beginning. Pretty much every week for the last couple of months (except, for some reason, your hour-long one, which may have been early, but wasn't so early that I missed the start).
-
John Clark is still on our screens, thanks to Radirah or whatever it's called, the skit show on Fridays on TV3. It reminds me it was better John Lennon died when he did.
Really? They've been doing this for years - and it still seems pretty good.
-
Would you believe it? After putting The Wire on in a post-midnight slot for five years, TVNZ are going to air Generation Kill. In prime time.
TV1, Mondays, 8:30. Starting 21 June, once The Pacific has finished its run. Wow.
-
I presume the bad guys have a web site as well if you tend that way.
http://www.petershirtcliffe.co.nz/
I kid you not.
-
It, follows the News which seems to have the same mindless sameness. Isn't this modern programming? (and I'd thank Fox) ...
There is a difference between Fox, and Fox News. Similar to the difference between Prime TV and Sky News in New Zealand.
Although in this instance, I suspect it isn't fair to blame/credit either of them. Fox doesn't do National news (though some Fox affiliates do local news), and the dumbing down of the news predates the Fox News ascendancy by quite some time.
-
damn it I’ve made myself look concerned. I hate that. I’m no liberal hippie. I’m off to stare in Glenn Becks eyes.
According to ABC News' Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper, Glenn Beck is a voice of reason. Well, once anyway. But in contrast to Rudy Giuliani, and Eric Holder, which is a plus for him.