What the Speaker says
The Speaker recommends four things:
1) Validating Legislation (even if all paid back)
2) Reimbursement – Wilson says it is not normally required but in this case must be “considered seriously” to maintain public confidence in Parliament.
3) Fix Up Parliamentary Service Processes
4) Temporary legislation to define better what expenditure is legal
She doesn’t accept all the legal advice on which the Auditor-General based his opinion, but accepts his conclusions.
The next key date is Thursday next week when Wilson will report back to the House which parties have agreed to pay the money back!
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
No tag for this post.
October 12th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Ok, what I don’t get, & someone can explain to me, is that Wilson is the minister of Parliamentary Services which issued the money for illegitimate advertising to the party which she was president of, yet she gets to rule how the report should be remedied.
Isn’t there a conflict of interest there..?
Isn’t she culpable in some way for Parliamentary services issuing the money to her mates (her ministerial responsibility)?
Shouldn’t Wilson be investigated to ensure she didn’t ‘hoodwink’ the money Parliamentary services issued, if anything, to put our minds at rest…?
October 12th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
I wonder if this is going to result in the same process used for Harry’s Law.
Hold off any reports so they can’t be debated, put together the legislation and deal over the weekend/next week, launch into urgency once the deal’s done with a ‘promise’ to pay back (check your wallets people) and get it off the agenda.
October 12th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Ok, what I don’t get, & someone can explain to me, is that Wilson is the minister of Parliamentary Services which issued the money for illegitimate advertising to the party which she was president of, yet she gets to rule how the report should be remedied.
Isn’t there a conflict of interest there..?
Isn’t she culpable in some way for Parliamentary services issuing the money to her mates (her ministerial responsibility)?
Shouldn’t Wilson be investigated to ensure she didn’t ‘hoodwink’ the money Parliamentary services issued, if anything, to put our minds at rest…?
October 12th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
NX – This would have happened whichever department it was. If the AG was reporting on education, it would have been the education minister. The Speaker is responsible for, though not i think ‘the minister of’ parliamentary services.
This is because it isn’t a ruling. It’s merely telling Parliament what action you intend to take on the AG’s findings. It’s because she has responsibility she has to explain this.
As far as I understand things, that is.
October 12th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
If the speaker has indicated that the only way of clearing up the unlawful behavior is by passing retrospective legislation, am I wrong to assume that she is overlooking prosecution and conviction as a viable way of clearing it up?
I am also in public life, and if I used my councils money to fund my next election I would think that if it were discovered I would be prosecuted before my collegues supported legal changes to approve it… oh well looks like the country really is going to the dogs.
October 12th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
Should be fine to not pay it back, after all we have a huge surplus to spend!
(only kidding guys)
October 12th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
Sonic:
Grrrrrrrr
While their at it why dont they just pay it back WITH the Surplus they could do that and it would only take 30 seconds of a Tresury accountants time.
October 12th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
Am I the only person who read the Speaker’s report and felt a curious desire to pig out on fudge?
Still, I think National should be working up a campaign ad about politicians that preach integrity and accountability to others, but when they’re caught out they change the law to ‘validate’ their wrongdoing out of existance.
October 12th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
They spent all that money on frightful bits of plastic with a fake photograph of her on it. Money that was supposed to be used for parliamentary purposes. And yet through it all because she thought the National Party was well funded from private money she thought she could just use the taxpayers money illegally and in anyway she liked. I would not trust that woman with 10c of my money so I resent every damn dollar she gets from me through taxes.
October 12th, 2006 at 5:14 pm
The best way to understand the Speaker is to see her as a muppet. A muppet which has each of H1 & H2′s talons stuck up the arse of it moving the hands and mouthpiece.
October 12th, 2006 at 5:16 pm
The best way to understand the Speaker is to see her as a muppet. A muppet which has each of H1 & H2′s talons stuck up the arse of it moving the hands and mouthpiece.
October 12th, 2006 at 7:46 pm
testing
October 12th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
It is obvious we do not have a Government that was legitimatly elected. Where’s the punishment for those who morbidly overspent and grossly flouted the rules. Now Labour is hoarding our money ready to offer fresh bribes for the scheduled 2008 election. We true kiwis cannot allow that to happen. We need an election within the next 6 months otherwise this country is doomed to Labour’s mutant form of socialism for the next 20 years or more. Rise all true Kiwis and spread the word “we need an election”.
October 13th, 2006 at 9:24 am
No clarification needed, what is needed is a bit of “HONESTY”, something Clark and the Labour Govt are sadly lacking, but not for much longer!
PS – anyone know how the renovations on Phillip Fields south Auckland rental properties going? He should have got a good jump on project managing their refurbishment, with our money and a few keen over stayers!
October 13th, 2006 at 9:26 am
Re “It is obvious we do not have a Government that was legitimatly elected”
If it’s good enough for the USA (think Bush) then I reckon you bushophiles can live with it here.
October 13th, 2006 at 9:54 am
Field is being kept quiet, and out of the way. He knows too much. [about Labour cooking the vote in the local and general elections]
October 13th, 2006 at 10:01 am
Will someone kindly clarify for me, is this an issue of where the money came from (ie party funds vs taxpayer funds) or one of whether a statutory limit has been exceeded. Or both.
I don’t know NZ electoral law well enough but it appears to me that both are at issue here. While misappropriation of taxpayer funds is important, don’t get me wrong, to my mind if there is a statutory or regulatory limit on how much a party may spend on electioneering in the runup to the election, and a party exceeds that limit, and that party wins the election, the result is unsafe. No?
The fact that the two leading parties committed this breach (accidentally or deliberately, doesn’t matter) renders the result MORE unsafe, not less.
The fact that all the parties bar one committed this breach is an international embarassment. And renders the election result laughable.
Tell me I’m wrong and it’s only about where the money came from.
October 13th, 2006 at 10:47 am
Spirit – maybe we could look at an amnesty from prosecution for Field if he were to come clean? He’s going to be hung out to dry by Clark Cullin etc, he has absolutly nothing to lose.
The average Labour voter can’t be that stupid to realise once the Frau has finished there isn’t going to be much left, she called Don Brash “cancerous” hell she has devoured the only remaining reserves of support the next labour leader was looking forward to having, this bitch is toxic!
June 12th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
csxknr apkwxs xnpym ikyqalnrp nivpl hsxfi lcrpujk
June 12th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
csxknr apkwxs xnpym ikyqalnrp nivpl hsxfi lcrpujk
June 12th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
csxknr apkwxs xnpym ikyqalnrp nivpl hsxfi lcrpujk