Posts by Phil Lyth
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Tom, while I don't agree with Graeme's overall view, I think you are engaging in a CHEAPSHOT.
-
Raymond, I am taking the risk that a panel of 70 voters may reach a collective view which does not match my prejudices (or yours!). But I recommend the Ontario panel's Background Report to you (jump over to Hard News for the link) for illumination about their processes.
-
Graeme, to continue on the theme of 'wise, reasonable, proper, and importantly moderate use' of public money:
Certainly much of what happens already is legal, and some may not be. But is all that is legal also wise reasonable proper and moderate? And is anything that may not be legal also automatically unwise unreasonable improper and immoderate?
Sending two Crown limousine drivers to Kaikoura was legal. But, I suggest, not good. Across at Hard News I suggest that it might be useful to have a panel of 70 voters scrutinise matters.
And if improper spending occurs by, say, inclusion by mistake of a $5 charge for a child's cot on a hotel bill, how does that matter if a Minister and spouse are (within the rules) regularly incurring accommodation, meals and other charges of up to $500/day? Or if, as you will assert, the children's ferry and rail travel should never have been billed-then-reimbursed, how does that stack up against the Auditor-General's finding of practicality?
As I asked at the start, what are your answers?
-
But I enjoy his theatrics. Masterful are they. Worthy of La Scala surely!
Don't often agree with him, but love his expression.
-
Graeme, is your approach useful or helpful? Certainly you're thumping the pulpit with all the moral righteousness and wrathful indignation of Ian Paisley Sr.
But every constable knows, when faced with a vein-popping citizen at the counter who Demands The Law Be Enforced, that he has a ready answer in saying that the Police can and do exercise discretion.
What actions would you suggest be taken to ensure as much as possible the wise, reasonable, proper, and importantly moderate use of public money?
I'll quote from parts of the Auditor-General's report of 30 Mar 2010 ('Heatley') linked above: (and I recommend reading the 20 page PDF to all who are remotely interested)
[Page 2] The public rightly expect all those who spend public money to recognise that it is public money . . . There is even greater sensitivity for Ministers and members of Parliament, who must manage the line between ministerial, parliamentary, party political, and personal spending.
[Page 2] It is also important that the rules and administrative processes supporting the rules are clear, practical, and align with common sense. (emphasis added)
[Page 4] For Ministers and members of Parliament, the boundaries between parliamentary, ministerial, party political, and personal expenditure may be difficult to manage in practice.
(relating to a Cook Strait ferry booking for the Heatley family and a car)
[Para 68, page 15] For practical reasons, the ferry and rail costs for two of Mr Heatley’s children were initially paid as part of his ministerial booking, but he appropriately reimbursed those costs immediately after the trip.
(but also relating to that travel))
[Para 67, page 15] and his family travelled by train to Kaikoura. VIP Transport Service provided a driver to drive Mr Heatley’s car to Kaikoura. A VIP Transport Service car was also sent to Kaikoura to provide return transport for the driver of Mr Heatley’s car.
Contrary to Ministerial Services guidelines:
[Para 87, page 18] the credit card agreement between [Department of Internal Affairs] and the cardholder allows personal use of the credit card in emergencies, with the costs required to
be reimbursedNoting that this is the considered report of the Auditor-General, never written lightly:
[Para 90, page 19] In our view, circumstances can arise from time to time where it may be sensible to put items of personal expenditure on credit cards when there is a clear intention to reimburse the costs. However, this should be done only when necessary and should be clearly documented. (emphasis added)
[Para 91, page 19] In our view, used correctly, credit cards are an effective and transparent way of paying business costs. However, the use of credit cards needs to be properly managed, with clear rules and policies that are enforced.
-
Paul, did you really take Gio's aside at face value? And good people don't use shock collars. Not on Craig. Not on dogs.
-
Sofie, I have put my comments in the public domain so I can't stop anyone quoting/cross-posting. Feel free to do so. You may be following Red Alert more closely than I.
Note also I have not said or suggested that National are the only party whose MPs travel for social events, such as this debate arguing "That Santa should wear Red." Just that it happened less than 24 hours ago and I have information on hand.
As I asked, would a panel of 70 voters think the use of upwards of $6,000 a responsible use of public money?
-
I failed to consider that MPs spouses might have also flown up for the weekend for a nice little jolly in the Mount. Potentially pushes use of public money up over $6,000.
-
Silliness, II
MPs can travel freeely around the country to do their job. Is that entitlement always used responsibly?
An example from last night, a National Party fun debate at the Mount Golf Club (Mt Maunganui) A fundraiser, not sure if party or another entity gets the money.
Out of town MPs attending were Michael Woodhouse from Dunedin, Hekia Parata from Wellington, Lockwood Smith from north of Auckland, Sandra Goudie from Thames, Louise Upston from Taupo, and Todd McClay from Rotorua.
Potential cost to the taxpayer for use of MPs entitlements:
Hotel x 6 @ $160 = $960
Airfares ex DUD, WLG, AKL = $1,900
Taxis and Crown limousines x4 for each MP (each end of two flights) = $1,200
Mileage for regional MPs = $300
* costs probably quite a bit higher if Lockwood took a Crown limo all the wayWould a panel of 70 voters think use of well over $4,000 of public money was justified? How did that compare to the amount raised for the local branch or charity?
-
sober fashion
underlying perception
At the moment, not enough of one and far too much of the other