How did the yacht get paid for?
February 26th, 2010 at 9:00 am by David FarrarThe Dom Post reports:
Former chief nurse Mark Jones will be asked to pay back $1250 after he chartered a yacht with Health Ministry money without approval.
Mr Jones resigned suddenly before Christmas after an investigation into his personal expenses.
The ministry will now investigate all expenditure against his budget after The Dominion Post revealed yesterday that spending may have included chartering a yacht during a meeting with Australian nurse executives in the Bay of Islands in December 2008.
Ministry deputy director-general Margie Apa confirmed those spending details yesterday.
“The ministry was concerned to learn … that a yacht may have been chartered using Health Ministry funds. Upon further investigation, it appears a yacht was chartered by former chief nurse Dr Mark Jones and paid for by the ministry.
“No prior approval was sought, or given by me or any other authorised person for this expenditure.”
The ministry would seek reimbursement of the $1250 charter fee, she said.
It is good that the chartering of the yacht by the Health Ministry was not authorised, but that does get me wondering how the bill got paid? Presumably Jones was authorised to approve expenditure up to a certain level, but you would think such an unusual item would be checked out and referred to someone higher up.
February 26th, 2010 at 9:33 am
One line on a credit card David. There may also be some lines from the yacht Club restaurant for meals on the same credit card. Easily missed.
I’m not defending him but neither am I willing to criticise without more knowledge. For example was he the principal host to a group of visiting people from overseas and instructed to show them a good time? If so, $1250 was a snip and a bargain.
Vote:I could say that it is likely that there is more behind this than meets theeye but that would be inconsistent with my neutral stance and would only reflect my own experience in hosting overseas clients in large organisations.
February 26th, 2010 at 9:37 am
The next level on this sort of expenses witch hunt will be that all hotel claims will need to be accompanied by a description of the standard of the room and an analysis of alternatives. All meal claims will need to be accompanied by a copy of the restaurant menu and a description of the food selected. Only then will some small-minded vegan be able to criticise the choice of a “T”bone over the Hummus or the choice of environmentally unsustainably orange roughy over the farmed salmon. Or the total wasteful extravagance of having desert when all they have at home is a raw carrot.
Where does it stop?
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 10:37 am
Te real question regarding this and all the other inappropriate spending ‘issues’ is why it takes the media to pick up on them – what is wrong with the current system whereby our taxes can be spent in this way without being picked up by the appropriate authorities?
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 10:39 am
I’m sorry; i just can’t get past the chief nurse being called mark.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 10:59 am
david (1238)
Where does it stop?
When all those who spend public money are made accountable for their exspences spending.. Including all Government SOE CEOs local Councillors Council CEOs and their management staff. This could make all public servants rethink their options.. and might make them think it is better to work in the private sector . A form of natural attrition.
I SAY PUT THE SCEWS ON EVEN TIGHTER… Only the most honest and honorable would be left to be public servant under such public scrutiny.. If not to say extremely rare and stupid.. Who in their right mind would want to be a public servant.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 11:11 am
Sam @ 10:37am. From my time in Government I observed the change in Public Service mindset in the mid 80′s under the Lange Labour Government when the State Services Commission was emasculated as the over-arching department that set compulsory standards and rules for the whole of the public service (which included the Railways, Post office, Teachers, etc).
Until then the SSC could promulgate a policy and every department had to follow it. It meant it didn’t matter what department you worked for, the rules about financial expenditure and accountability were the same. There was never any confusion, or room to operate outside the rules – you would be caught and held to account.
The rules were well-published and the most trivial of expenses were part of published policy. For example if you were a public servant on transfer to another part of the country the department could authorise you buying a new TV aerial for your new home, but it wouldn’t cover the cost of shipping your firewood from your old home to your new one. It sounds amusing, but we all knew the boundaries and what was allowed. There was certainty, security and accountability.
When Prebble, Douglas et al sold off profitable Government departments and those that didn’t get sold were allowed to manage their own affairs with little of the old SSC oversight, the temptation to rort the system really emerged because the old SSC rule book was thrown out if the department wanted to establish its old policy. Instead the fancy new-titled CEO’s of departments could set the rules as they went, or make exceptions outside policy as favours to friends, and it was all lawful.
So the rorting and blurring of personal and Government expenses has its origins back in the mid 80′s when the departments were given the almost unfettered power to please themselves how they spent their budget. Remember the millions Christine Rankin spent on “re-branding” WINZ with new logo’s and stationary and signage? It’s a welfare agency for God’s-sake! That legacy is with us today.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
Actual story: expenditure controls in Ministry lax – call for independent audit.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
I’ve been waitying all day for dime to show up and make the point that only a damn fool would charter a yacht and not fill it with hookers. Is he unwell?
Vote: