Legal Beagle: Because it is a big deal
70 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
Goodness. That's quite interesting.
Indeed it is. 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. :)
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. :)
3410: Around here, I'd get my arse righteously spanked if I couldn't do marginally better than "Liar-bore lawyer misses the point". Seriously.
BTW, if Graeme is a "Tory" stooge, I've got to wonder how he escaped from the re-education camp after supporting the Electoral Finance Act.
-
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).
-
3410,
3410: Around here, I'd get my arse righteously spanked if I couldn't do marginally better than "Liar-bore lawyer misses the point". Seriously.
BTW, if Graeme is a "Tory" stooge, I've got to wonder how he escaped from the re-education camp after supporting the Electoral Finance Act.
Maybe so but, either way, neither point's got any relation to what I said. Anyhow...
-
Where is the authorisation of spending on golf clubs?
Was there any spending on golf-clubs? By the public I mean....
A credit card got used..... the credit card companies money goes into vendors account.
If the politician puts funds into the account before its due.... did any public money get spent?
-
If the politician puts funds into the account before its due.... did any public money get spent?
Umm. That's don't work.
Just because interest hasn't been charged yet, doesn't mean money hasn't been spent.
-
No, actually until repayment is due the money simply hasn't been spent. It's abusing a line of credit at best. It seems quibbling in the face of precise rules and reiterated advice that it was not OK, however.
-
> If the politician puts funds into the account before its due....
> did any public money get spent?Umm. That's don't work.
Just because interest hasn't been charged yet, doesn't mean money hasn't been spent.
But if you put down a deposit when you got the credit card, and always maintained a credit balance? Then surely it is just an accounting convenience.
And if it can so easily boil down to an accounting question, then isn't it a storm in a teacup?
-
I will give you the 'reiterated advice' issue.
We have the same advice at my work, and the accounts clerks sitting behind me routinely expostulate about another infringement. As an IT person I feel that our team has somehow let them down if it is such a big trial for them to process a statement with clearly identified personal items.
-
I've been doing translations for an expense management software company and they have a facility to flag payments as personal so that employees can then refund the company when the statement comes back - so it must be how some corporates decide in fact that it's the most rational way to deal with it.
-
It seems quibbling in the face of precise rules and reiterated advice that it was not OK, however.
I agree that they certainly seem to have had very clear rules..... and it also seems that at least some of them were under an understanding that breaking those rules was actually normal and acceptable as long as it was refunded..
But Graeme was saying, regardless of those rules, its illegal to spend un-appropriated public funds.
I was questioning (only half-heartedly- I wouldn't want to put my neck on it) if un-appropriated funds had indeed been spent, because if they haven't, the point is moot.
I suspect I'm wrong... I'm trying to prompt clarification...
-
No, actually until repayment is due the money simply hasn't been spent. It's abusing a line of credit at best.
But only on the basis that a bank has agreed to give your place of work a credit card and that's how credit cards work.
The goods or services have still been paid for. The provider of the goods or services have the money in their bank account, and your workplace credit card shows the expenditure. Seems pretty 'spent' to me, and the fact that the bank allows you to actually pay the bill a month later doesnt' change that.
-
I borrow five dollars from you, with the proviso that if I haven't paid it back within a month, Craig will pay you back. If I pay you back within that month, Craig's money will never leave his pocket, although you could also say that he's incurred a potential liability between my borrowing of the five dollars and the repayment. Still, saying that he's spent five dollars would stretch the definition of "spending" somewhat.
-
Perhaps we could clarify some of these questions by moving the government to debit cards? Hopefully the government doesn't actually need the credit, in which case they are getting 'free' credit at the expense of those who get stuck in the rather nasty web.
Ambiguity resolved + karma points.
-
FWIW, my Business Mastercard is interest-free for a month but the balance is automatically cleared on the 20th of the month via a direct debit from our business account.
Bit of a pain, actually, because it doesn't seem possible to clear it in advance.
-
I can't see any justification for using the cards for single purchases of golf clubs and bicycles etc.
But I'm quite used to traveling for work, and usually when you check into a hotel you leave an open credit card imprint. Sometimes with a group you will ask that members pay their own extras apart from accommodation and breakfast, and sometimes those get missed at check-out for all sorts of reasons and are reimbursed later. Isn't that what most of this beat-up is all about? particularly Shane Jones' PPV movies, the employer recovering unpaid extras bills. It looked like they were pretty good over all to me. -
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.
-
(ii) The improper use of any public financial resource.
Thankyou Graeme... I think that trumps my point...
Money wasnt spent but a financial resource was used...
-
I borrow five dollars from you, with the proviso that if I haven't paid it back within a month, Craig will pay you back.
I'm not disputing that as long as it gets paid back the workplace doesn't end up coughing up.
Using the fact that it's on credit to claim that money hasn't been 'spent' seems to be trying to worm around the actual issue. It's employees using employer credit for personal expenses. I can't imagine the people who wrote the laws meant to exclude that by using the word 'spend'. Spend is about the money going from the purchaser (in this case actually the employer via their credit card) to the supplier of the good or service.
-
Still, saying that he's spent five dollars would stretch the definition of "spending" somewhat.
Ahh, but there is no definition of spending.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.
-
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?
-
As an IT person I feel that our team has somehow let them down if it is such a big trial for them to process a statement with clearly identified personal items.
Speaking as an accountant, it is not the IT person that has let us down, it is the person holding the card that has let us down. What is so difficult about: "Hmm, that's my work card, and that's my own card. Those flowers are a gift for my partner from me, so I'll use my card, not the company card."
You're right, it is not terribly difficult to process personal expenditure, but it does involve many transactions - processing the credit card bill in Accounts Payable, then either deducting the funds from payroll (because the employment contract allows us to do that), or processing the credit from the bank statement. Then someone has to reconcile all that. And that is whether or not it is a $19.95 movie or a set of golf clubs. So, the card holders convenience at using company funds comes at the inconvenience of the accounts and possibly payroll staff.
-
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 -
You know what I've learned from this thread? Should have worked harder at school and gone into tax law. :)
-
I quote this bit....
Quite right: good governance, not PFA illegality.
-
One strong argument against prosecution is the two-year statute of limitations. We're fewer than five months away from National's second anniversary, meaning that the vast majority of liability on the part of former Labour ministers is already under the carpet. By the time an investigation is carried out, evidence procured, opinions sought from Crown Law, etc, all but the very closing minutes of the Fourth Labour Government will be out of reach. Given that this behaviour crosses party lines, is the public interest actually served by prosecutions based on technicalities and, by dint of the legislation's wording, able to be directed at only the ruling party?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.