Wong wronged
September 6th, 2011 at 10:00 am by David FarrarAndrea Vance reports at Stuff:
The husband of disgraced former minister Pansy Wong wrongly claimed more than $2000 of taxpayers’ money for private business trips, a watchdog has ruled.
A report ordered by Speaker Lockwood Smith last year found the couple had abused the MP’s travel perk on one occasion, in December 2008, and forced them to pay back almost $500. Wong resigned as Botany MP in December.
But, Auditor General Lyn Provost said another trip – in June 2008 to China’s Lianyungang province – was for “private business purposes” and Sammy Wong should not have asked for a rebate.
However, Provost said her investigations found there was ”no pattern of wrong doing” by the couple “or of extensive business activity linked with overseas travel”.
Wong said she welcomed the report because it found they had not “intentionally abused the system”.
She denied her husband meant to mislead the first inquiry.
In a statement she said: “At the November 2010 inquiry, Sammy Wong contacted the company in Lianyungang, China, to ascertain the dates that he visited there. He received a list detailing trips he had made and the June 2008 trip was not on it. None of the trips listed involved any parliamentary travel rebates. He accepted the external confirmation in good faith and had no intention to mislead any inquiry.”
Wong added: “I hope the findings of the Office of the Auditor General and my actions taken demonstrate that accountability was accepted and any mistake made was unintentional.”
While in no way condoning the claiming for two trips which were ineligible, I would note Pansy has paid a very high price for just $2,000 of wrong claims. Many other MPs were found to have inappropriately charged more than that to credit cards etc, and they got away with just paying it back.
September 6th, 2011 at 10:21 am
I am sick of hearing about politicans and is this case there spouse, getting caught stealing from people and you all think it is ok becasue they pay the money back
Vote:I want to see criminal charges
September 6th, 2011 at 10:29 am
Yes, I mean she could have watched porn movies in a hotel on the public dime and now be a contender to lead her party into the future.
Vote:September 6th, 2011 at 10:34 am
Or found it more convenient to lose a suit on every trip than to get his dry-cleaning done.
Vote:September 6th, 2011 at 10:37 am
And what would Labour/Mallard have done otherwise during that time?
Vote:Rolling in the mud they enjoy by far.
September 6th, 2011 at 10:47 am
I don’t care if there was “a pattern of wrongdoing”. I care if there was “wrongdoing”.
Vote:The former might determine the appropriate sentence. The latter is about the appropriateness of conviction.
September 6th, 2011 at 11:00 am
The stranded are crying whitewash. suprised? i wasnt, the dickheads over there don’t understand what impartiality of public servants must mean. I don’t understand why the Psa continues to support them.
Vote:September 6th, 2011 at 11:02 am
DPF – agree that Pansy Wong has probably paid a high price for her actions, but she actually did break the rules. She admitted as much – “Wong added: ….”accountability was accepted and any mistake made was unintentional.””
The big difference in Pansy Wong’s case, is that she admitted the mistake, paid the amount back and resigned.
Ironic that today we have the biggest travel abuser of all, standing in the House delivering a valedictory speech.
Vote:September 6th, 2011 at 11:28 am
At least the Wong’s have not been referred to the Police, unlike a Political Party.
Vote:September 6th, 2011 at 11:32 am
Two wongs don’t make a wight.
Vote:September 6th, 2011 at 12:09 pm
In a statement she said: “At the November 2010 inquiry, Sammy Wong contacted the company in Lianyungang, China, to ascertain the dates that he visited there. He received a list detailing trips he had made and the June 2008 trip was not on it.
Vote:……
I trust the company in Lianyungang. They wouldn’t lie.
September 6th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Even at the time I thought the response to Wong’s wrongdoing was disproprtionate. Some elements of the media attacked her with extraordinary viciousness – especially compared to the milder treatment handed out to the likes of Chris Carter. I wondered what she had done that we did not know about to draw that response.
Vote:The lack of pattern certainly suggests to me that the wrongdoing was unintentional. We all make errors, and those who live in glass houses etc…. While there should have been a price for it, the one she paid was extortionate. Others have done far worse and gotten away with it. I sincerely regret what has happened to her, and hope she is finding satisfaction in like beyond politics.
September 6th, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Having read the AG’s report, what is evident is that the Office relied entirely on documents provided by the Wong’s, and interviews of them, and a few interviews of NZ’ers as the means by which it arrived at its conclusions.
There is a complete absence of any independent inquires or verification in China of the Wong’s activities.
The AG compared the Wong’s travel to the PRC, against bank statements given to them by the Wong’s, and concluded no real business income was derived from the trips.
However, the flaw in the AG’s findings is it can not be certain the Wong’s don’t maintain (undeclared) bank accounts in China and that income earned on these trips is sitting in those accounts.
Bottom line: we the taxpayer forked out $70,224 on overseas travel for the Wongs. Good on the Speaker for bringing this rort to an end.
Vote:September 6th, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Sum sing wong here.
Vote:Standards fall lower and lower in New Zealand. What a surprise.
A person breaks the rules and paid a penalty.
David surmises that she was hard done by because many others broke the same rules and they
got away with it.
Down we spiral.
Oh! If that twisted logic applies, why not just ignore all the rules. Whats the point ?
Why have any standards at all ?
September 6th, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Maybe it should be a complete defence to any wrongdoing if you can say.
Vote:“Yeah, but look, he did it too.”
Hey, we could really change things by adopting that logic.
Why not ?