Auditor-General investigating Greens funding
December 31st, 2005 at 11:25 am by David FarrarExcellent to see that the Auditor-General is going to investigate the Greens getting some staff funded out of Vote Ministerial Services despite not holding any Government warrants, not being in coalition, and in fact not even pledged to vote in favour of confidence and supply.
I thought it was an awful precedent, and it will be interesting to see what the AG recommends.
No tag for this post.
December 31st, 2005 at 5:06 pm
It all looks pretty dodgy to me. Isn’t this just a sneaky way to increase the Green’s office funding without it coming out of their parliamentary funding? Clark may be the PM but surely she has to act within the parameters of the Public Finance Act when it comes to dishing out my hard-earned tax dollars?
Vote:December 31st, 2005 at 5:23 pm
Do you actually know what you are talking about kowhaikiwi ( an expat moniker if there ever was one). What clause of the public finance act do you you refer to?, surely you dont just take the word of the great constutional lawyer and ex woodwork teacher from St Bedes, Lord Gerry of Fendalton.
Vote:How can it be anything but above board, the people will be employed by Ministerial Services, and paid by the MS vote, as authorised by Parliament. gee they will have a ‘desk’ in the Greens offices, how outrageous! Lets just quote the PFA to make a silly arguement seem important.
December 31st, 2005 at 5:36 pm
Oh well thats all right then, if Helen does it it’s not illegal… hey that sounds very familer!
You’d best drop a line to the AG there Maurice. Poor old AG seems to be operating without the essential aid of your personal interpretations.
Vote:December 31st, 2005 at 6:25 pm
You take Lord Gerry’s pompous pronouncements too seriously murray. He has merely hit the send button on the Word macro which generates AG letters. I see no real substance in his complaint, much less any ‘action’ from the AG. When you ring up the council noise control , they too will ‘investigate’, does the sky fall as a consequence? , hardly!
Vote:December 31st, 2005 at 6:36 pm
I’m trying hard to give a rats arse about what substance you see… but not managing it. And I’m even less interested in what Brownlee has said. It’s his job to to keep the government honest. I’d use the word duty but it would cause lefties to reach for the dictionary.
The AG thinks it’s worth investigating, he investigates. You don’t want him to, call him. I’m sure he’ll be fascinated by your interpretation.
Vote:December 31st, 2005 at 7:48 pm
But we all forget that the Greens were charged with such important tasks of spreading the word about buying NZ made and something or other to do with solar panels, supposedly because Labour doesn’t have such capablities. No, it has nothing at all to do with buying confidence and supply votes in the event that Peters and Dunne leave Helen short.
Vote:December 31st, 2005 at 8:45 pm
Murray, you still dont get it. Lord Gerry has merely got a ‘due course’ reply, there is no action from the AG, nor will there ever be. They are far to busy investigating why the council does nothing about the leaves falling in my gutters, look it says so here in my letter..
Vote:…. your situation will be investigated in due course….
December 31st, 2005 at 8:46 pm
In any civilised country–say, Angola or Khazakstan–the funding arrangements would be regarded as a corrupt bribe.
Vote:Helen and her ethics-free cronies have brought N.Z. so far down the track of corrupt behaviour that the arrangement “may” be investigated.
And Enzed scored well in a recent survey when it comes to corruption?
God only knows what yardstick the survey used.
January 1st, 2006 at 9:49 am
Labor owns the greens.
Vote:January 1st, 2006 at 12:01 pm
Maurice
Section 9 of the Public FInance Act states that appropriation is limited by scope and that
(1)The authority to incur expenses or capital expenditure provided by an appropriation
Vote:January 1st, 2006 at 1:01 pm
How come then during the Shipley government public money was given to Donna Awatere-Huata through her various so called charities that wasnt explicitly authorised by the relevant budget!. Needless to say Donnas money broke the rules for the cabinet process as well.
The simple answer is that a cabinet minute can authorise the money to be spent on any purpose which is within the broad aims of a Department vote.
“…..office administration, accounting, personnel,
information technology, facilities management, media and advisory services and on
the management of residential accommodation provided for Ministers of the Crown.”
“Advisory services” just about covers it. Its not as though these people are employed by the Green Party who then send the bill to MS. The jobs are advertised through normal public service channels and would be classed as Ministerial advisors that are seconded to the Green Party.How amazing they will be working on government policy!, even though its a dead end area and just a sop.
Im pretty sure this is an area that will greatly expand in the future and will be used by National as well since it makes sense.
Vote:January 1st, 2006 at 2:56 pm
Nice try Maurice but you are leaving out a few key words in saying “Advisory services”just about covers it.
The sentence you have taken that extract from begins with “Support services for Ministers including…advisory services”.
I think you will find that the money given to Awatere-Huata came out of appropriations set aside for grants. Nothing necessarily dubious in that in itself but the real problem was in the monitoring and evaluation of how the grant money was spent.
Vote:January 1st, 2006 at 8:37 pm
Well, if it’s alright for Donna, then it’s alright for the Greens. As long as the outcome is the same. How many years did she get?
Vote:January 2nd, 2006 at 2:32 am
All this argueing is silly, the basic fact is that Labour are funding the Greens and it is against all the rules. Anywhere else it would be considered corrupt. Surely the AG report will expose this, but the real question is how well will Labour manage to not only justify it but to continue doing so.
And worse of all, Green apologists then fighting tooth and nail explaining why this money is rightfully theirs!
Vote: