Legal Beagle: Because it is a big deal
70 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
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.
-
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?
-
Good work Graeme this is certainly matches my take on the matter
I really like this idea of that Phil is floating of allowing a panel to keep an eye on this stuff
At the moment the checks and balances are supplied by the Civil Service who quite naturally have quite a different take on the use of public money compared with tax payers -
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.
-
Given the fundamental legal position presented by the legal eagle here , for which I thank him, Isn't the case of us funding Nick Smith secretly
to defend himself after abusing a private company an even bigger scandal?I mean he pissed in the marketplace as an independent philosopher, went way beyond his political duties.
-
NEWSFLASH: Tory lawyer misses the point.
-
I thought the breach of public sector funding laws was an interesting angle, and it's good to be reminded again of the Audit office findings about Heatley. Please let's not allow this to degenerate into cheap political partisanship.
-
Tom, while I don't agree with Graeme's overall view, I think you are engaging in a CHEAPSHOT.
-
Graeme a Tory. Unclean! NYEUUURGH!
-
By all means argue how he's missed the point, but I don't think calling Graeme a tory or a lawyer adds much - not that I believe he'd necessarily describe himself otherwise.
-
Graeme has already said that he thinks that making personal purchases on the Ministerial credit card with the intention of reimbursing them AND actually reimbursing them is worse than sneaking something a bit marginal onto the card to see if you can get away with it.
Good luck with finding another 11 (or 69) people on a panel who'll agree with that. The public cares about "use of public money" only to the extent that the public's money is , you know, used. And while they hate politicians, they're also not too fond of lawyers. Graeme admits himself in his post that he speaks as a lawyer, implying that he knows us lay people are happier to apply 'common sense' in many cases. Such as this one, I would suggest. Which is exactly why the media have been playing it as they have.
-
Tory lawyer misses the point.
Which is...?
-
Tom ,poor Graeme just reads the law, someone has to do it.
-
Maybe the Budgie Smuggler wearing Speaker of the House will be remembered for,... transparencey ?
To his credit, Lockwood has kept his private life, private for most of his time in the public eye.
-
What actions would you suggest be taken to ensure as much as possible the wise, reasonable, proper, and importantly moderate use of public money?
Private prosecution, pour encourager les autres.
-
Private prosecution...
But only for stuff in the last two years.
-
NEWSFLASH: Tory lawyer misses the point.
NEWSFLASH TOM: Around here we usually do people the courtesy of presuming they're arguing in good faith.
-
But only for stuff in the last two years.
If you get in quick, you might just be able to get Jones. Otherwise it'll have to be Groser or Heatley.
-
we usually do people the courtesy of presuming they're arguing in good faith.
I assumed we were. Arguing someone has missed the point can most certainly be an argument made in good faith - although I'm intrigued to know:
1. why there is only one point; and
2. what that point is.Because for the most part, I thought my point was 'Here, I looked through all the law, and extracted some bits out for you so you didn't have to, so that people could better understand the legal situation and take that into account when making their assessment of the whole thing.'
Of course, that isn't really a point at all so I suppose that means I have missed the point. Pray tell then Internet, what are the points?
-
Noting 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)
Goodness. That's quite interesting.
-
Russell. My thoughts exactly. It seems to contradict the implaccable "it is clearly always illegal" line.
-
Goodness. That's quite interesting
Not really.
The AG is making the distinction between prohibited public expenditure (ie, including that which should be privately incurred), and the incurring of private expenses (ie, including on a public credit card in "circumstances").
To be clear, it's not an offence to put private expenses on a Ministerial credit card, unless there's an intention improperly to procure public funds for such private use.
-
Russell. My thoughts exactly. It seems to contradict the implaccable "it is clearly always illegal" line.
Yes. Now if I could find a legal basis for it, I'd be a happy man. For the true emergency situation envisioned in the credit card contract, the defence of necessity would apply, and would negate criminal liability under s 76 (although the spending should still be validated), but for mere convenience, I just don't see it.
Section 25 of the Public Finance Act allows expenditure without appropriation in emergencies, but that section only applies if—
(a) a state of emergency or state of civil defence emergency is declared under the Civil Defence Act 1983 or the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002; or
(b) a situation occurs that affects the public health or safety of New Zealand or any part of New Zealand that the Government declares to be an emergency.
And section 26A allows transfers between appropriations in certain circumstances, but it doesn't go so far as to allow spending outside of any appropriation.
-
Now if I could find a legal basis for it, I'd be a happy man.
No doubt, but that would just be confirming your prejudices.
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. Your reference to s25 of the PFA illustrates how far you miss the mark.
Private expenditure on Ministerial credit cards presents a risk to transparency, tends to illustrate poor judgement, and its reimbursement should be achieved through good governance. But it's not an offence in itself.
-
3410,
NEWSFLASH TOM: Around here we usually do people the courtesy of presuming they're arguing in good faith.
Apart from all those times that you dismiss someone's argument as being made solely on the basis that they "don't like" the subject of it. :)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.