Kiwiblog

One of the defences we hear in defence of excessive overseas travel, is that the PM or Cabinet approved it, so it can’t be criticised as the fault of the Minister doing the travelling. I want to put that myth to bed.

The role of Cabinet or the PM in approving, is to check a ministerial trip is within the rules. That you are actually going to be doing some portfolio work on the trip. I think you will find that almost every Ministerial trip submitted for approval gets approved – because Ministers are expected to be big boys and girls who can use their own judgement about value for money.

What Cabinet and the PM don’t spend a lot of time on, is looking at all of a Minister’s travel over the last year and working out whether the travel is becoming excessive. They are too busy running their own departments to be acting as nurse maids for other Ministers. It is the Minister who is doing the travelling who should be asking themselves the question about whether their travelling is becoming excessive.

The reality is that almost any Minister could find enough reasons to do more than half a dozen trips a year. There are numerous conferences in portfolio areas that can be worth attending, and bilateral meetings with counterparts overseas can be one of the best sources of new policy ideas etc.

On an individual trip basis, a Minister can justify each and every trip as being of value.

But a Minister also needs to use their judgement about whether the total quantum of their overseas travel, and associated costs, is reasonable. Sure each individual trip may be worthwhile, but is eight trips in a year reasonable?

Most Ministers can work this out easily. They don’t apply to go overseas at every opportunity, They may do one major trip of bilateral meetings a year, and say a conference attendance.

So I don’t put much stock on the defence that the PM or Cabinet approved it. Of course they did. But no one forces a Minister to apply for said travel.

Phil Goff sent Chris Carter home, hoping he would come back to Parliament contrite for his spending. But as the SST reports, he is anything but:

Goff said Carter, MP for Te Atatu, had failed to express contrition and forced him to apologise unreservedly. …

Carter said: “We could argue the rights and wrongs of whether I’ve done anything wrong. The only personal items were two bunches of flowers that a staff member sent on their card, and all ministerial travel was signed off.”

Once again, he is arguing he did nothing wrong. Also overlooks the flowers were to his own partner.

He said the apology was given “because you have to think about what is good for the Labour Party”.

In other words, he didn’t mean it. He did it to help Labour, not because he accepts any errors of judgement.

Carter was embarrassed again last week when it was revealed he promised exclusive interviews to both TV3 and TV One. “I guess I just wanted to be nice. It’s called PR, that’s what politicians do.”

No, there is another word for that, one you can’t use in the House.

So last week Carter was at least pretending to be contrite. Now he has emerged to talk to the media and once again declare he has done nothing wrong and only apologised to help Labour. So who is advising him?

Chris Carter last night broke his silence, saying he was returning to parliament, having taken advice from the party’s former head, Helen Clark.

This really makes Goff look a man not in charge of his own party.

Matt McCarten writes in the HoS:

But Carter’s meltdown this week surely finishes him. It’s not the card misuse that will kill him, it’s his clear inability to admit he’s done anything wrong.

As we see above.

His tiresome claim that he was being targeted because he was gay was absurd when of the four Labour MPs Phil Goff promoted, three were gay.

They were promoted on merit – their sexuality had nothing to do with it.

Yep.

Carter’s actions this week was politically unforgivable. Goff had his perfect story.

The errant credit card behaviour was under Helen Clark’s watch, not his. It was a golden opportunity for Goff to act tough; discipline the three transgressors and stamp his authority on his caucus. …

But Carter’s actions completely destroyed Goff’s strategy. Understandably Goff hit the roof and banished Carter to home detention to reflect on his indulgence. But the damage was done.

Instead of Goff looking like a leader in charge and his party being able to move on from the scandal we have a party still being rocked by their own indiscipline.

Will Goff now demote Carter to the backbenches? Surely after the SST story, he has no choice? Or is Clark still protecting Carter from afar?

The Herald reports:

Former Labour ministers Mita Ririnui and Parekura Horomia were sent 186 reminders and requests between them over their credit card spending, a Weekend Herald investigation has found.

Official figures made public this month show Mr Horomia, MP for Ikaroa-Rawhiti, was the most lax of all MPs. Between 2003 and 2008, officials had to send him 94 requests for receipts or reminders of the spending rules.

Close behind, list MP Mr Ririnui received 88 requests between 2004 and 2008, and four letters requesting more details of spending.

That is basically a reminder every three weeks, that got ignored. It’s not three strikes and you’re out – it’s 94 strikes and you remain on the front bench.

Meanwhile, Progressive MP Jim Anderton this week repaid more than $700 in personal expenses put on ministerial credit cards during a trip to Rome and Malaysia in 2008.

Mr Anderton said he was “deeply upset” the money had not been repaid immediately after the eight-day trip.

He had written a cheque for the outstanding amount after the trip.

“Inexplicably, the cheque was mislaid.”

Jim said it was outrageous to expect him to pay using two separate credit cards when checking out. The above shows exactly why that should happen – because them there is no chance of reimbursement cheques being “mislaid”.

The Herald hits out at dubious pet projects:

The latest example of misuse is the $120,000 that the Auckland City Council’s finance and strategy committee has voted to spend on commissioning a history of the council from 1989 to 2010. …

Never mind, also, that the money is being spent on a work which, no matter how worthy, will be of interest to few and read by even fewer.

Two previous volumes covering the history of Auckland from 1871 to 1989 hardly featured on bestseller lists. …

In time, an uncommissioned historian would surely come up with a far more interesting and relevant work.

I blogged on this, this morning, and agree with the Herald that it is un-necessary expenditure.

The other three editorials are all on Labour and Chris Carter. First The Press:

Last week, before his demotion from the Labour Party front bench over his misuse of his ministerial credit card while in government, Chris Carter spoke of being close to quitting because of the uproar over the matter.

It was apparently only a passing thought but now that he is cooling his heels at home after the Labour leader, Phil Goff, bluntly told him to take some time off to consider his future, it is a question he should seriously consider. Carter’s appalling behaviour in the days after the exposure of his credit card transgressions is only the latest indication that he may lack the temperament, moral compass and gravitas that should be the basic equipment of a member of Parliament and Cabinet minister. …

Carter’s first response, on the other hand, was a pig-headed refusal to accept that he had done anything wrong. Even when Goff finally made it clear to him on Tuesday that his performance had not been acceptable, he still declined to apologise to his fellow Labour MPs and fled from journalists who tried to question him on the matter. It was only after Goff told him to go home and calm down that he finally made the public apology he should have made days earlier. By this time he had forced Goff into the farcical position of having to hold a third press conference of the day to deal with the matter.

The Dom Post:

They show that ministers in the last Labour government thought nothing of spending more on a night’s accommodation, a meal or a taxi ride than some of their constituents could earn in a couple of weeks. The difference between Mr Carter and the other two Labour MPs who misused their ministerial cards for personal expenditure – Shane Jones and Mita Ririnui – is his lack of contrition. …

There are even times when it is in the national interest for them to splash out on a particularly good bottle of wine or expensive meal, for example, when hosting their international counterparts. What the records released last week show, however, is that ministers in the last government lacked the ability to distinguish between spending in their interest and the country’s interest.

That is a problem not just for Mr Carter, who cannot ever hope to hold another ministerial post, but for his party. Bollinger, lobster, massages, limousines, helicopter rides and $700 taxi fares are not the way middle New Zealand lives, let alone Labour’s traditional supporters, the ones Labour’s MPs rely on to give up their free time to hand-deliver mail, knock on doors and ferry supporters to the polls on election day.

Labour has a credibility problem. It will not be fixed by ceremonially beheading three big-spending MPs. It has to reconnect with people who don’t drink Bollinger, stay at luxury resorts or eat like royalty by demonstrating that their concerns are its concerns.

That is the long term challenge indeed.

The ODT opines:

When Labour leader Phil Goff named his shadow cabinet in November 2008, it was clear his natural caution influenced his decisions.

He did not promote any of the new entrants in Labour’s caucus, relying instead on the experience of ministers who had served in the Clark government.

His rationale may have been that they would be best suited to attack the new government and maintain Labour’s poll standings; if so, it was a strategy that failed.

Which is why he will do a full reshuffle later this year.

In that sense, the opportunity presented to Mr Goff by the expenses scandal has proved a godsend.

He was able to remove from the spotlight one serious contender for the leadership in Shane Jones, and in dealing with the other major offenders would finally be able to give a public demonstration of the strength of his own leadership.

Labour has been damaged by this, but Goff personally has come through it ok.

If Mr Carter gets the message, he likely will return in a state of contrition.

If he does not, he will resign, forcing a by-election – a prospect Mr Goff probably would not welcome.

Well who wants to fight a by-election caused by an MP resigning because he resented criticism of his overseas travel?

A leader with better advice than Mr Goff appears to be getting would have acted more ruthlessly, and perhaps Mr Goff – who evidently does not have a personal chief of staff – should consider hiring a political adviser not inclined to shelter him from unpleasant realities.

I recently saw an exceptionally good quote from Solon, a Greek lawgiver in around 600 BC, which was “In giving advice, seek to help, not please, your friend“. This should be pinned up in most parliamentary offices.

Stuff reports:

Take a bow, Labour’s Darren Hughes – at least one former minister has proven capable of separating personal from work spending.

Credit card receipts from Mr Hughes’ ministerial days show that on a trip to a conference in Australia in August 2008 with a staffer, any alcohol they drank at restaurants was paid for in cash separately. Only meals went on the ministerial card.

Mr Hughes was also quick to question his bill – a $7 hotel minibar charge for pistachios in Auckland was reimbursed by the hotel when he said he had not eaten them.

Mr Hughes said it was his custom to separate the cost of alcohol and pay for it personally.

Darren is a very smart lad. You can’t get into trouble doing that. He wasn’t obliged to, but he did. It is called a risk averse approach.

Phil Goff is starting to look foolish for his leniency with Chris Carter. Carter won’t apologise or front, and gets rewarded with the major portfolio of Conservation.

Then as it becomes apparent that he is showing no contrition at all, Goff sends him home. He disobeys this and goes into his office to draft a press release which still manages to come across as forced and grudging (because it is).

This is enough to keep him with the conservation portfolio, and he heads off home, despite Phil Goff wanting him to front up to the media.

It is very obvious Chris Carter does not think he did anything wrong. His behaviour has been the opposite of Shane Jones, yet he has not been treated anyway near as harshly.

The Labour whips will finally force Carter at some stage to front up to the media and pretend to be sorry. But it will be a farce. Goff will win kudos if he calls Carter’s bluff and demotes him all the way. Carter will not have any sympathy within Labour, and would be an outcast for all time if he forces a by-election.

Fairfax have put all 17,000 pages of expenses claims online. They want your help to review them all. Go this page and it will then assign you a page yet to be reviewed. A great way to share the burden.

They even have a guide as to what to look out for:

1) Items that cost much more than they should (eg: $1000 suits, $200 bottles of wine)

2) Spending lots of money in short periods of time (eg: $1000 in restaurant bills is alright for a month, not for a day)

3) Strange explanations from MPs (Do they keep losing their luggage on overseas trips? Do they give vague reasons for large bills?)

4) No details on the bill (eg: $2000 on “room charges” in a hotel bill, with no more info).

5) Things that have no business being paid for by the public (eg: movie tickets, new cars, home electricity bills)

This is an excellent initiative. What I especially like about it is how you don’t have everyone covering the first few pages. You can give feedback to their reporters on what pages to check more closely.

In some ways it is similar to what many US states have done – put their entire cheque register for all agencies online. Then you get a legion of armchair auditors going through them.

I’m currently going through Judith Tizard’s expenses and finding notes complaining there are no receipts or details. The only response is she took some arts people to dinner.

It would be great if enough readers can review claims to get though all 16,522 pages in a day. No doing your normal jobs until they are all reviewed!

Phil Goff has announced:

Shane Jones repeatedly misused his ministerial credit card and this requires a clear sanction.

He will lose his front bench position and the two major portfolio responsibilities he holds. …

Chris Carter also wrongly used his card on several occasions over six years as a Minister on things outside the rules for Ministerial expenditure. He has now repaid the money.

These items by themselves would not warrant removal from the Foreign Affairs portfolio. However there has been public controversy around the frequency and cost of Chris’ travel as a Minister accompanied by his partner which damages his ability to continue in this portfolio.

Chris has lost the portfolio and his front bench seat and will sit on the second bench. Given the importance he attached to his portfolio this will be a severe sanction for him. …

Mita Ririnui wrongly used his Government credit card to purchase golf clubs and a bike. These are clearly personal items, involving significant expenditure and occurred on two occasions.

He did not do so with any dishonest intent and reimbursed Ministerial Services for that expenditure at the time.

However it was clearly outside the rules and he should have been aware of that and showed poor judgement.

As a result he will lose his shadow portfolio responsibilities for forestry.

I can’t complain about Goff’s decisions – mind you he had little choice after his attacks on Heatley over $70 of wine. But well done to him for taking some action.

The outcome is a bit unusual now. Carter is MP for Te Atatu and still has electorate duties. He also retains Spokesperson for Ethnic Affairs.

However Shane Jones and Mita Ririnui now hold no portfolio at all, and are List MPs. One has to seriously ask what value they will bring to the taxpayer, sitting there for 18 months with no portfolio responsibilities, and no electorate. Their sole responsibility will be to attend their select committees, yet get paid the same as they are getting paid today. It is a political demotion, but not a financial demotion.

We’ll find out tomorrow who gets promoted.

The Herald reports:

Labour leader Phil Goff is moving quickly to deal with the fallout over the spending of some of the party’s former ministers.

Mr Goff returned from a trip to China today and was tonight talking to Shane Jones, Chris Carter and others embroiled in the scandal.

Party sources told NZPA that Mr Goff wasn’t going to wait for Tuesday’s caucus meeting and was likely to announce his decisions around noon tomorrow.

Mr Jones and Mr Carter are almost certain to be demoted and a third, Mita Ririnui, could also go down in the ranks.

Let’s review each of the three.

The decision to demote Chris Carter is an easy one. It was almost inevitable that he would have been demoted in the year end reshuffle anyway, and eas expected to retire at the next election anyway.

The potential danger around Carter is that if he got seriously disgruntled and resigned, he would cause a by-election in Te Atatu – a seat no longer guaranteed to stay with Labour – National narrowly won the party vote in 2008.

A demotion for Shane Jones is more challenging. There is no doubt it has to happen, but Jones was a potential rival to Goff as leader, and is unlikely to remain around for long if he sees himself in for a long spell on the backbenches. Hence he will be told that any demotion is temporary, even though I suspect it will be permanent. What they do not want is Jones resigning and bringing Judith Tizard back on the list.

Mita Ririnui lost his seat in 2005, and was lucky to make it back in 2008 as a List MP. He was also one of those expected to retire in 2011 anyway, so a demotion is no big thing. He wasn’t front bench anyway, and I can’t even recall what portfolio he covers.

The HoS reports Chris Carter is close to quitting Parliament:

New Zealand’s first openly gay Cabinet minister is close to quitting Parliament because he is sick of being attacked as a “luxury-loving gay boy”.

Chris will quite Parliament at the next election – because his colleagues are so pissed off at him.

“Do you want to live your life with this stuff going on all the time? You know, I love being an MP. But there might well be a point soon where I think this is just not worth it.”

Yes, how dare one have to endure scrutiny of spending.

But he said the public perception of him as living the high-life at the taxpayer’s expense was grossly inaccurate – and he still drives a 1996 Suzuki Swift.

The only thing grossly inaccurate is Chris’ perception. It is a shame – he used to have a well developed political instinct, but it has deserted him.

“I have lots of faults … but arrogance, pride and love of luxury are not among them.”‘

So why the $6,000 of limo hire?

No other Minister has been “forced” into hiring them, as you claim you were by the Australian Government.

Matt McCarten writes:

This week the credit card expenses came out on Thursday and none of it was good for Labour.

A number of former Labour ministers clearly didn’t know where the line between their public responsibilities and personal luxury needs started and finished. …

But what these ministers didn’t get is there are rightly different standards for them. They are in the privileged positions of being leaders, where their personal ethics and integrity are important no matter what their political stripes. Carelessly using a ministerial card for personal luxuries is thoughtless at best and corrupt at worst.

There are two types of politicians – those that think it’s a privilege to be a representative of the people and those who think it’s a privilege for us to have them. You can guess which category the ministerial card abusers fall under.

As we saw in the previous story.

And Kerre Woodham writes:

Phil Goff thundered sanctimoniously that Heatley’s position went to his head.

He’d barely been minister for a year, Phil Goff expostulated, and his sense of entitlement was such that he ordered two bottles of wine with dinner. Heads should roll, Phil finished.

Well, as sure as the karma bus will make a stop at your door, Labour has found itself having to explain away thousands of dollars worth of credit card bills run up by its former ministers.

Karma indeed.

Chris Carter, the serial trougher, was at it again. Despite being advised repeatedly as to what was appropriate use for his ministerial credit card, and despite being sent the entire parliamentary policy on credit card use, just as a reminder, Chris Carter continually bent the rules.

Movies, flowers, fruit and massages – whether the massages had happy endings isn’t specified on the bill – all popped up on Carter’s credit card.

Oh Kerre. Too much detail.

And the HoS editorial:

The most extraordinary aspect of the scandal over spending irregularities that has destroyed Shane Jones’ leadership aspirations – and possibly his entire political career – is that he ever imagined he might get away with it.

In numerical terms, Jones is not in fact the worst offender in the latest round of revelations: his one-time colleague in Cabinet, Education Minister Chris Carter, actually ran up 33 per cent more than Jones – on flowers, designer clothing and spa treatments.

Most gallingly, he used his ministerial card to buy flowers for Lianne Dalziel after she was sacked as Immigration Minister for lying about having leaked documents to a television channel.

The logic by which he could regard it as a ministerial duty to console a colleague who had sought to deceive the public remains obscure to everybody but him, it appears.

The thought of personally paying for the flowers did not occur I suspect.

… principal among them is the requirement that no personal expenditure be incurred on a ministerial card. That means precisely what it says: it does not mean that it is all right to run up private expenses with the intention of later reimbursing them.

Many of us run two or more plastic cards and make daily decisions about which to use, for reasons of our own personal accounting. It is no great burden to do so, and it is the least we might expect of someone carrying a card for which the taxpayer picks up the tab.

No great burden and very common.

The events of the week have surely irretrievably damaged the mana of a man who was widely tipped to succeed Phil Goff as Labour leader and, in the eyes of many, potentially the country’s first Maori Prime Minister.

Sad though that is, there is a sense here of history repeating itself. Winston Peters and John Tamihere were in their turn cloaked with the mantle of future premiership.

Hmmn, it does seem to be a sort of curse.

And finally the SST reports:

Jones is being urged not to resign as Goff looks set to use the scandal to shake up his front bench.

Jones and Te Atatu MP Chris Carter face demotion tomorrow after Goff’s return to a party in disarray over revelations going back seven years.

The release of credit card receipts last week show Carter notched up bills for limousines, flowers and massages, while Jones watched dozens of pornographic movies. He repaid the money before he handed in his credit card, but Carter is still paying money back.

Jones, who has been tipped as a potential leader, is considering his future, but has ruled out resigning.

Samuels said Jones shouldn’t quit. “He has got leadership qualities I don’t think anybody else in the party has. Many in Maoridom would be very disappointed if he resigned.”

And besides if Jones goes, who else will be there to grant citizenship for Dover’s mates?

Finally John Tamihere writes in Sunday News:

THIS week the Department of Internal Affairs disclosed detailed lists identifying expenditure of ministers in the Labour Government from 2003-2008. I was a minister from 2002-2004.

I had no idea I could order massages, flowers, porn movies and booze galore. The biggest scalp achieved by the clever release of this information was Shane Jones.

While others erred and were arguably worse, particularly Chris Carter, Jones is the big story.

He entered Parliament as the Labour Party attack weapon on the Maori Party and as a person who had huge cross-over appeal into non-Maori communities.

He has Dalmatian ancestry and was gaining significant support for a tilt at the Labour leadership once they lose the 2011 election.

I am not sure Jones was going to wait until 2011.  Phil Goff’s leadership has been made much safer by this.

The question is, can he survive as a politician? He is a list MP and does not have a constituency to fall back on. He is at the whim of the back-room Labour Party machinery.

That machinery is driven predominantly by a group of women who stretch across the gay, union and the woman’s divisions of the party. They control the moderation committee that decides where you sit on the party list. I sat on that committee for the 1999 and 2002 elections.

All of Shane’s colleagues are going to tell him he has a future in politics and not to quit. And then come the 2011 list ranking, he’ll be given an unwinnable place.

All four major editorials are on the credit card revelations. First the Herald:

Such scrutiny is, obviously, overdue given some of the ministerial behaviour that has come to light. Equally, it must be recognised that the very functioning of government sometimes requires ministers to dip into the taxpayer pocket.

In this regard, some of the criticism directed at ministers has been well wide of the mark. Take, for example, the fact that Trade Minister Tim Groser paid what, for New Zealanders, represents a lavish restaurant tip while at an Apec summit in South America.

Quite simply, that was the level of gratuity expected in Peru. Equally, the same minister, as part of his official duties, is expected to entertain dignitaries on his many trips overseas.

There should be no surprise that his spending on liquor and food is reasonably substantial.

Likewise, there is nothing out of the norm in Murray McCully spending nearly $2000 of taxpayer money on laundry services.

His role as Foreign Affairs Minister dictates not only that he travels frequently but that he presents a good image when meeting foreign dignitaries.

McCully naturally looks unkempt, so any investment in keeping his shirts wrinkle free is worth it

And there is Shane Jones’ lust for pornography, which led him to watch as many as three pay-per-view blue movies a night in hotel rooms and then charge them to his card.

The revelation will surely lead to the demotion of the former Building and Construction Minister when he faces his Labour caucus colleagues next week.

Labour leader Phil Goff has little option given his strong criticism of Housing Minister Phil Heatley, whose infringements were mild by comparison.

As Mr Jones conceded, he has dug a hole that may well prove to be his grave. It is difficult to see a way back, so deep and enduring will be the taint of the revelations and what they say about him.

Labour MPs are busy lining up to tell Shane that he can recover from this, but the political reality is that if he carries on he will spend 18 miserable months on the backbenches, and then disappear at the next election. They just want him to stay on, to avoid Judith Tizard returning.

The Press slams appalling judgements:

Some might argue that the credit card revelations are a media beat-up, but in the case of the worst offenders there are serious issues. The spending reflects appalling judgment and a misplaced sense of entitlement on the part of several senior politicians who once held ministerial portfolios, with some no doubt aspiring to do so again.

Another disturbing feature thrown up by the release of documentation is the tardiness of some ministers in filing receipts for their spending, with officials having to pester them to do so. Again, this reluctance to be accountable for spending taxpayer money showed poor judgment.

But again some balance:

This helps explain why food and drink receipts loom so large among the released documents. The current Trade Minister, Tim Groser, who was the subject of a complaint about his behaviour on an international flight, has now raised eyebrows with his mini-bar tabs. But Groser should not be judged harshly too quickly. Groser is required to be frequently overseas on portfolio business and should not be begrudged, after a long day of trade talks, winding down in his hotel room with a drink. Perhaps it needs to be explained, however, how he came to buy five $92 bottles of Famous Grouse scotch during the climate change conference in Copenhagen. Whether or not another former Labour minister, Judith Tizard, should have spent $155 on a single bottle of champagne is another question.

People who don’t travel much think that travel is fun. Being in other countries can be fun, but travel itself is not. Spending 200 days a year travelling overseas is a pretty miserable existence.

The Dominion Post focuses on Shane Jones:

Former Labour minister Shane Jones’ biggest sin was not that he watched pornography. It was that he got the taxpayer to pay for the pornography he was watching. Mr Jones’ purchase of porn betrays of mammoth sense of entitlement and a minuscule sense of propriety.

He is not alone. Judith Tizard moved on from being a chardonnay socialist to become a Bollinger bolshevik, charging up a $155 bottle of bubbly to the taxpayers.

Chris Carter felt it was appropriate to use his ministerial credit card to buy flowers for his partner, Peter Kaiser, and for colleague Lianne Dalziel when she was sacked, plus kitchenware in London, and massages in Buenos Aires.

Mita Ririnui used his card for golf clubs and at a bike shop. The list goes on. They can clearly read the menus and wine lists but apparently not the ministerial guidelines on spending.

The lack of remorse is what grates:

Mr Carter says his mistakes were “perhaps inevitable, but never excusable”. That offers no insight into why he thought the taxpayer should be paying for “kitchenware” – apparently mugs bearing the British Labour Party logo – and its postage back to New Zealand from London.

Former agriculture and forestry minister Jim Anderton is little better. He has rejected any suggestion it was improper that spa treatments at a Malaysian hotel were charged to his ministerial card, saying he paid the money back and “it’s just silly to think you’re going to carry a number of cards and pay for this on one and that on another”.

He is wrong. That is exactly what he should have done, and what most in the private sector expect to do when they are travelling with a company credit card.

Exactly. And the excuse that Ministers are too busy to check out themselves is trite. They can give their personal card to staff to use at checkout. They can get the bill the night before and indicate then what items are personal and pay for them.

Mr Jones, once touted as a future Labour leader, will pay a high political price. His credibility is all but gone.

In many ways a pity. He was one of the economically most literate MPs in Labour. But his colleagues are deluding him if they say he can get over this.

The ODT points out not all Ministers have offended:

Many members of the public and probably most of the media have long suspected politicians have so designed their professional way of life in such a manner as to rort the taxpayers as often and as deeply as they can get away with, surrounded such behaviour with a thicket of prohibitions on disclosure, and adopted denial as the first defensive posture when challenged.

The accusatory brush has been broad, yet as the recent disclosures show, unfairly so. By no means all present and former ministers have abused their special privileges at our cost; indeed, several have been quite circumspect, using their ministerial credit card with caution and within the rules. …

The exceptions have been disappointingly cavalier with their private spending and their hypocrisy for doing so while generally railing against wasteful state spending will do their reputations no good whatsoever.

Winston Peters has denied using his credit card, but it is clear from the records that his staff charged many items to it claiming they were expenses, never mind a reminder of the “unarguable” policy that credit cards not be used for personal expenditure, regardless of repayment.

Jim Anderton was also shown to have used his card for a massage and spa services for himself and his wife while on Labour government business.

Others have treated the taxpayer-funded card just as carelessly, but on a far greater scale. The contrast on television between the smirking former Labour minister Chris Carter and his shamefaced colleague Shane Jones perhaps spoke volumes about attitudes.

Indeed.

Colin Espiner blogs:

What a disaster for Labour. Any faint chance it had of winning the 2011 election has been buried in the rubble of the gluttony, greed, and wanton extravagance of its foolhardy MPs.

The ministerial credit card spending of Labour’s former stars makes National’s odd indulgences look like paragons of fiscal rectitude.

Even Tim the Groser’s bar bill pales into insignificance beside the flagrant disregard for taxpayers’ money shown by the likes of Chris Carter, Parekura Horomia, Shane Jones, Mita Ririnui and Judith Tizard.

At least Shane Jones admits he was wrong. I can’t believe the sense of entitlement from some of his colleagues.

Flowers for each other, $160 bottles of Bolly, 16 beers during a dinner for two, massages and spa treatments, health clubs, whiskey, cigarettes, helicopter rides, plane charters, fancy luggage, and all the other trappings of the high life.

To call a spade a spade, Labour’s MPs were taking the piss. They were taking the taxpayers of New Zealand for a ride.

It’s such a pity, too. Because the revelations contained in the thousands of pages of credit card statements released to the media reinforce every stereotype and prejudice the public has always had of MPs: that they were on the pig’s back at our expense.

And that’s something I’ve always argued against. Most MPs aren’t like that. Most are hard-working, have a conscience, and are careful with public money. But their colleagues have totally stuffed it up for them all.

It is worth noting that it is not a majority of Ministers who spent up large. In fact it will be interesting to see how the various Ministers and ex Ministers look once all the papers have been gone through.

Tracy Watkins reports:

Free-spending government ministers rorted their taxpayer-funded credit cards against the backdrop of a Yes Minister culture.

As former Labour ministers lined up to justify their spending – including a $300 tour of the Taj Mahal, a month-long, $22,000 tour of Europe and a five-hour taxi ride – Prime Minister John Key has told officials to show no mercy from now on.

“I’ve said to them it’s got to stop … They should be cutting up the credit cards of people who use them [inappropriately].”

This should make a significant difference. Ministerial Services officials have not in the past been able to do much but send letters and e-mails reminding Ministers of the rules. If the PM gives them the authority to cancel a credit card if there is repeated mis-use, then that will be effective.

Equally effective is the decision to open them up to scrutiny. Knowing they will now be released quarterly, will provide a strong incentive to make sure costs are not only within the rules, but are reasonable.

Air New Zealand have got into the fun with this advertisement for their $20 specials. Heh.

More details coming out today. The Press reports:

Progressive leader Jim Anderton racked up a $22,000 bill on his ministerial credit card during a month-long trip to Europe in 2003.

He also spent $324 on a gift from Kirkcaldie & Stains before leaving on the trip.

The cash splash while in Europe  from April 9 to May 3 included $3500 at Hotel Hilton in Frankfurt, $3400 at Hotel Conrad in Dublin, $2600 at the Palace Hotel in Helsinki and $1000 at a restaurant in Vienna. His wife and private secretary went with him on the trip.

At the Frankfurt hotel he spent about $2100 on “room charges”. No details are provided in the documents.

How do you rake up $2,100 in room charges??? That would tire even Shane Jones out.  I sure hope there are some details.

It also wasn’t easy on the tax-payer’s back pocket sending Mr Cosgrove and his wife to Beijing for the 2008 Olympics. The accommodation for the nine day-stay in an executive deluxe room at China World Motel alone was $6,388.

A spokesperson for Mr Cosgrove said the hotel was designated by the Chinese government, with the Minister not allowed to choose.

Then Prime Minister Helen Clark agreed Mr Cosgrove had to go but questioned the length of the stay in a hand written note on the proposal for overseas travel.

I have no issue with the Minister of Sport attending the Olympics.But like Helen, I would question whether nine days is excessive.

Stuff also reports:

One night at a top-end London hotel in Mayfair cost the tax-payer $1435.93, Ministerial credit card receipts reveal.

Labour MP David Cunliffe travelled to London in his capacity as the Minister for Communications and Information Technology in March 2007.

The receipt from the staff credit card used to pay for the trip shows Cunliffe and one other person booked two rooms at The Westbury Hotel in Mayfair, London.

The Westbury is a five-star hotel on London’s exclusive Bond Street. The hotel charged $441 per night for each of the two rooms Cunliffe booked. Lunch at the hotel cost $117 and breakfast was $66.

I thought the opening sentence is actually a bit misleading as one could assume the $1,400 is the room rate. Only later on do you see the actual room rate is NZ $441 a night which frankly is pretty damn reasonable for London.I don’t see anything inappropriate there.

In the Herald, Chris Carter defends his spending as “minor mistakes”:

* $607 for some campaign posters and 14 British Labour Party coffee mugs:

“We had visitors [to the office] every hour and we served tea and coffee. While in a bookshop [in London] we bought 14 cups – they’re bright red and say ‘Labour’ on them. We could have bought cups in Briscoes but these had ‘Labour’ designs.

I’m amazed that this one was approved by Ministerial Services. The taxpayer should not be funding campaign posters from the UK and if a ministerial office needs some coffee mugs then one can get some very nice one locally for around $5 each – from Briscoes in fact. It looks like the “Labour” cups cost around $40 each.

A $5507 bill for car travel in Adelaide:

“We were told by Ministerial Services in Wellington that when a Minister goes to Australia you must use cars provided by the Australian Government because of security reasons.

“They’re horrendously expensive but that’s how it was. [We were] a prisoner of the Australian rules and had no choice. I would have been just as happy in the cheapest taxi.”

I am highly highly suspicious of this claim, and hope media ask some more questions on it.

My understanding is that many Ministers use taxis in Australia. I think Anne Tolley recently went there for two days and her taxi bills were around $80 to $100. So this requirement or policy Carter refers to has either lapsed or never existed.

Also remember that Chris Carter had the rental hire in his partner’s name in the Northern Territory. How would that be possible if the Australian Government really insisted that you had to use Government limos if you are a visiting Minister.

I think some calls to the Australian DFAT are in order!

The Herald reports:

Mr Anderton said his staff were yesterday unable to locate evidence the expense was repaid but had contacted Ministerial Services and hoped to locate the documentation today. He rejected the suggestion there was anything improper about paying for personal items on his ministerial cards.

“Be sensible about this – these corporate cards pay for the hotel and all the things attached to them.

It’s just silly to think you’re going to carry a number of cards and pay for this on one and that on another.”

As a Minister Jim Anderton would have signed a form promising not to use it for personal use. Ministerial Services had explicit policy that this was the case. So what we see is the typical Anderton arrogance is that the rules don’t apply to him. He says so long as the items are reimbursed, there is no issue.

What he calls “silly” is exactly what you should do. I’ve often split the bill when staying at a hotel.

When I worked at Parliament, I probably travelled domestically more than most staffers, as I had to go around every MPs electorate office to do training. Now before people get excited, you won’t find five star hotels on my bills, but more typically a motel in Matamata costing $70 and a meal costing $15.

It was quite common that only the room would be charged back to Parliament, and any personal extras (no not movies) you’d pay for on your own card.

What Jim Anderton doesn’t get is that he does not get to decide the rules. If the rules said that Ministers can charge personal expenses to their cards, so long as they reimburse them within 20 days, then that would be fine. But the rules don’t say that. They were explicit that you should not do this, and Anderton just chose to ignore it. At least other Ministers offered excuses or admited they were wrong. Anderton is genetically incapable of doing so.

The real winner out of yesterday’s revelations is David Cunliffe. Not only were his records squeaky clean, but he is now clearly the leader in waiting, with Shane Jones having self destructed.

But Jones may not be totally gone. While he is a List MP, it has long been rumoured that George Hawkins will retire from the safe Manurewa seat at the next election, and George is said to have two preferences for his seat – anyone but Twyford, and Shane Jones as a mate to keep Twyford out.

Manurewa would give Jones a seat for life. It is one of the safest in the country. Will this plan go ahead now?

TV3 reported that Phil Goff was going to demote Chris Carter from the front bench at his upcoming reshuffle, due to his travel and spending. That is little surprise, but it raises the question about whether he will leave Shane Jones on the front bench?

You know your political career is all but over when the headline on Stuff is “Minister of Pornography”.

I doubt Shane Jones’ line that he is a “red blooded adult” will go down now. The issue isn’t that Shane has watched porn – most men and many women have. The issue is that he charged it to the taxpayer.

There can be grey areas over what you can charge – such as meals etc. But no one could have a reasonable expectation that hotel porn is a legitimate work related expense.

There seem to have been a dozen or more of these movies charged to the taxpayer. In the UK the former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith lost her safe seat after revelations that her husband had charged one porn movie to the taxpayer.

Under MMP, one can’t vote Jones out of office. Only Labour can do so – he is their third highest ranked List MP. Ironically the winner out of all this may be Phil Goff – Jones certainly will not be challenging for the leadership any time soon. Also if Jones resigns, that brings back Judith Tizard!

Twitter has been hilarious today, with scores of people tweeting suggested titles for Shane’s movies. The Twitter channel is here, and well worth following. Some of the suggested titles are:

• Hung Parliament
• Black Rod
• Foreign Affairs
• Chief whip
• The Honourable Member
• Erect Committee
• Private Secretary
• Ministerial Probe
• De-Briefing the Minister
• Yes! Yes! Minister
• Anti Smacking, Pro Spanking
• Loves Labour Tossed
• Withdraw And Apologise
• Mixed Member Proportional
• The bi-election
• The Thick Of It
• Parliamount
• Ejaculated from the house
• The State of Head
• Crouching Taniwha, Horny Dragon
• Debbie does Dannevirke
• Emissions Trading Scheme
• Rainbow Lay-bour

And many many more. They keep coming in every few seconds. So many wits.

This is a classic:

Lower Hutt based Countdown retail worker Richard Loa announced today that he was deeply embarrassed by revelations that he had been taking items from the store without paying for them.

Loa, a 41 year old checkout operator and frozen foods section assistant team leader came forward today to admit that over a period of four years working at the Wellington supermarket he had taken home bottles of wine, frozen chickens, vitamin pills and razor blades on a weekly basis.

‘I now accept that this was wrong and I apologise for it,’ Loa said. ‘In my defense the rules around whether or not I could smuggle out bottles of shampoo in my gym bag were vague and unclear.’

It is understood that Loa came forward after Countdown management announced that they had installed security cameras in the staff changing rooms. These showed footage of Loa eating two large boxes of Lindt chocolates valued at $44 while on breaks during a busy weekend shift.

‘That’s when I decided that coming clean and explaining everything was the right thing to do,’ Loa said, adding. ‘The chocolates were consumed while I was doing my job although I concede that the security footage is not a good look.’

‘I would have paid for the chocolates myself but I didn’t have any cash and it seemed more convenient at the time to stuff them under my shirt and eat them in the toilets,’ Loa explained.

Loa announced that he would repay the value of the chocolates and other items consumed but would not be stepping down from his position as frozen foods assistant team leader.

‘I’ve made a mistake and I’ve done the right thing and fronted up to it,’ Loa said. ‘I acknowledge that it’s not a good look but frozen food placement faces a lot of challenges and I have some exciting ideas on how to tackle them so I’d like to put this whole thing behind me and move on.’

This attitude is not shared by Loa’s employer Progressive Foodstuffs who have dismissed him without notice or by the New Zealand Police who have arrested Loa on five charges of theft.

The best paragraph is about how he would have paid but didn’t have any cash on him, so that makes it okay!

The Herald reports:

MP Shane Jones is expected to be one of the more embarrassed former Labour Cabinet ministers when details of credit-card spending going back six years are released today.

Before leaving office, he is understood to have repaid about $6000 for spending deemed outside the rules.

This included hiring a plane from Auckland to make a speech in Tauranga, movie rentals, and the purchase of magazines and expensive wine.

I hope we get to learn the titles of the movies, and the quality of the wine!

This will dent Shane’s leadership aspirations.

UPDATE: Stuff reports more:

Former Labour government ministers racked up taxpayer-funded credit card bills for a massage, new clothes, wine, pay-per-view movies, a $600 set of golf clubs and chartering a private plane,

A massage and golf clubs!

Whale blogs on the domestic air travel bill for Nelson based List MP Maryan Street, being $82,000 over 15 months.

Based on the cost of flying to Nelson, it represents around 15 return flights a month, or 4 return flights a week. Now there will be some non Nelson travel, but even taking that into account, the cost seems very high.

Whale suggests the reason for the high cost is that Maryan’s partner is studying at Victoria University, and possibly is flying to and from Nelson every week also. It is important to stress that there is no proof this is the case. Also on a personal note, Maryan’s partner is a very nice person and I would ask people not to jump to conclusions or do any name calling.

The issue is whether or not the use of spousal travel to study is legitimate. The Speaker’s determination is quite clear:

3.8 Domestic air travel of spouses and partners

The spouse or partner of a member may travel by air at any time on scheduled air services throughout New Zealand, provided that the travel is not for private business purposes.

Flying to attend university is not for private business purposes, so it is absolutely clearly legal.

But the test is not always what is legal. For example it is legal for a Dunedin spouse to fly twice a week to Auckland to go shopping.

The test now being applied, is more “is it reasonable”. Most people think it is reasonable for a spouse to be able to fly to Wellington from time to time so they get to see each sometimes during the week.

But is flying to and from Wellington every week for study (even f the MP is not there) a good look?

Now again I want to stress that it is only an assumption that the travel perk may have been used for study purposes. There is no proof of this, and even if there is – it is entirely 100% within the rules.

But I think just as many other MPs have faced questioning over their level of expenses, it is reasonable for media to make inquiries as to whether this is why the travel expenses are so high for Maryan. It may be that it has nothing at all to do with this, and it is all the cost of travel to treaty settlements, as reported.

The Herald calls for transparency over MPs legal expenses:

Taxpayers have a right to know how their dollars are being spent. That includes the allowances paid to the country’s parliamentarians for accommodation or travel, as some MPs have learned to their discomfort over the past year or so. It should also include the use of public money to cover legal costs when parliamentarians are sued. …

Clearly, there are occasions when it is legitimate for MPs’ legal bills to be paid with public money. Parliamentarians should act vigorously on behalf of their constituents. …

Yet but for the publication of documents by the New Zealand Herald and an admission by Dr Smith of the use of some public funding, taxpayers would have been none the wiser about either of the requests for reimbursement or their granting or denial.

The Prime Minister, John Key, said yesterday that taxpayers were entitled to know that money from the public kitty was being used for MPs’ legal costs, and that he would be open to such information being made public. That is a refreshing outlook, and one that indicates Mr Key is fully aware of the harsh spotlight on MPs’ expenses and allowances, both here and in Britain.

As I blogged, I’d include it in the six monthly expense reports.

The Dominion Post also wants more transparency, but around a health spending scandal:

Unacceptable. There is no other word for the situation that police claim has developed with Waikanae’s Te Runanga O Te Ati Awa Ki Whakarongotai, its health-provider arm Hora Te Pai and Capital & Coast District Health Board.

Stripped to its essentials, the police allege that money that was meant to be spent improving health has been siphoned off into other areas.

Regardless of the final outcome of the police inquiries, that is no way to manage $590,000 of taxpayers’ money. It is public money, and the handling of it should be transparent, with the details of where it is or what it has been spent on readily available.

I agree. Phil Kitchin does an invaluable job in expsoing their spending scandals. But we should not have to rely on him.

As I have said previously, I’d do what some US states do and have the entire cheque register for the Government put online. People could then file OIAs about spending that looks dodgy.

The Press says the dam decision is a close call:

The benefits from building a hydro dam on the Mokihinui River, north of Westport, are obvious.

It would, by using a resource that on the West Coast is endlessly renewable, give the region enough electricity to power 45,000 homes.

The dam would not only supply most of the region’s electricity needs in an undeniably carbon-zero way, it would also end the reliance on a long and vulnerable transmission line that brings the area’s present power supply from the Waitaki. Supply would not only be more secure, it would be more efficient and West Coast electricity prices, at present some of the highest in the country, would be lower.

Which is why many locals support it.

The proposal would require a 85-metre high, 300m wide dam across the river that would create a narrow, 14 kilometre long lake covering 340 hectares. Meridian says that the impact would be minor and it has made a considerable effort to make sure they are kept to a minimum. No endangered species are threatened, it says. In addition, the resource consents Meridian has received have more than 200 conditions attached to them to further reduce the impact. Nonetheless, according to the objectors, a precious, irreplaceable part of the landscape will be irretrievably changed. …

But the country cannot afford to have decisions like this one made on emotion and sentiment. Electricity demand is growing by 2 per cent a year, equivalent to the needs of a city the size of Dunedin. The two-to-one vote on this scheme shows that the commissioners’ approval was not easily arrived at but it was made, as it must be under the Resource Management Act, after rigorously detached consideration of all the arguments. In this case the commissioners decided the development’s impact on the environment are not bad enough to block the project.

I’ve blogged on this separately also.

And the ODT looks at Easter trading:

Parliament, as it so often does, tried to design a horse with its legislative provisions controlling private enterprise during Easter, and instead produced a camel.

A particulary stupid camel, that has a limp.

There is nothing about the regulations that can in 2010 be considered just and necessary, let alone reflective of contemporary society.

The creation of geographic exemptions to trading on Good Friday and Easter Sunday, meaning some places can open their doors while others must close – backed by farcically small penalties – is simply unjustly partial. …

The Muldoon National government passed the legislation in 1980 which provided for shops to be open on Saturdays, and also broadened the range of heavily restricted goods able to be sold on Sundays.

The world did not come to a halt as a result; indeed, apart from the predictable complaints from the unions, the public in general welcomed the measure, which also signalled the decade’s major social change – the end of the five-day, 40-hour working week.

And one day when we have sensible laws around Easter, we will look back with bemusement over how long it took us to do it.

It is time for the matter to be settled and the only way that will happen is to abandon the so-called “personal vote” in Parliament and achieve suitable legislation by way of a Government Bill.

Whether John Key’s administration has the fortitude to do so, or is prepared to risk the undoubted wrath of church and union, is arguable: Mr Key agrees the present regulations are a shambles and would like them to be liberalised, and he has voted accordingly in the past.

It is time for a national solution: declaring Easter Sunday to be a public holiday would protect workers’ wage levels, and sending a Bill to a select committee would ensure public opinion – more accurately reflecting the times in which we live rather than electorate pressure on individual MPs – could be canvassed.

I’m a big supporter of change, and have myself mooted a trade off of making all of Easter public holidays in exchange for removign the trading restrictions.

But I am reluctant to have this become a party whipped issue. I think MPs should have freedom of choice on this.

Having said that, I note that Labour have almost adoped a party line on the issue, so maybe in time National will also.

It is good that the public now know that some legal expenses for some MPs have been met by the Parliamentary Service.

However the reporting on this issue hasn’t made very clear a quite important point – that the paying of such expenses has not been an additional cost to the taxpayer – it has meant less gets spent by a parliamentary party in other areas such as pamphlets, Axe the Tax buses, press secretaries etc.

Each parliamentary party gets a set amount of money allocated to it, based on their number and type of MPs. The leadership decides how to spend that money – around half normally goes on paying for staff in the leader’s office, and the rest on expenses such as postage, printing, research, advertising etc.

Parliamentary parties go to great trouble to spend their full budget each year. A party leader would generally much prefer to spend more of their budget on some extra billboards for their latest campaign (such as axe the tax) or to hire an extra staff member, than pay the legal expenses of an MP.

So why do they sometimes pay the legal expenses of an MP? When they consider the legal expenses were incurred by the MP as part of their job. Much the same as any boss would have to decide whether to pay the legal fees of one of their employees.

Note that this can only be used to defend a lawsuit, not initiate a lawsuit.

Over time, three National MPs had their party leaders consider whether to meet some of their legal expenses out of the leader’s fund. I think they got it right in all three cases.

The Peters lawsuit against David Carter was for comments made by Carter explicitly in his role as Chair of a Select Committee which has been sent a letter making a number of allegations (off memory all Carter said was that they were so serious they needed investigating). I regard that as a work related expense.

The same goes for the Osmose lawsuit vs Nick Smith. Nick’s comments were in his role as parliamentary spokesperson for National on building issues.

Those two cases were both approved. The legal expenses for the private lawsuit against Gerry Brownlees relating to his evicting a protester from the 1999 National Party campaign launch were not approved. While there is an argument that Gerry was acting in his capacity as a whip, I think the correct decision was made that this was a private party function, and Gerry was acting in a private capacity, not a parliamentary capacity. Hence his legal expenses were not met.

So I don’t have an issue with the eligibility of legal expenses of MPs to be considered work expenses, met out of the bulk funded leader’s fund. Nor do I have an issue with the decisions made to date.

However on the issue of transparency, I would agree that it would be sensible for there to be a requirement for any use of parliamentary money on legal expenses to be disclosed, perhaps as part of the six monthly disclosures.

TV3 reported yesterday:

Labour MP Chris Carter is tonight defending a planned two-and-a-half week trip to Europe as just doing his job.

Mr Carter was much-criticised for his hefty travel bills when he was a minister, but now Carter is off to observe the upcoming UK elections.

And that is not parliamentary work. Chris is Opposition Foreign Affairs Spokesperson, and overseas travel to meet with foreign Ministers and MPs on international policy issues is a legitimate work expense.

But spending over a week observing the UK elections is not – that is party political.

If the election observing was just for a day or two, of a trip with legitimate parliamentary purposes, then I don’t think it would be an issue. But observing (which really means learning campaign strategies to try back home) an election is not a legitimate parliamentary purpose.

Mr Carter was dubbed the ‘Minister for Overseas Travel’ when he was in office, spending $131,000 over a year. Now in opposition and with the spotlight on MPs’ spending, Mr Carter has had to be more careful.

No wonder Whale has dubbed Chris the gift that keeps on giving. On top of his huge number of trips as Education Minister, we’ve also had many trips in Opposition – few having anything to do with his parliamentary duties.

Mr Carter told 3 News the only taxpayer-funded part of the trip is the heavily-subsidised return airfares to Europe he’s entitled to as a long-serving MP, and he’s likely to fly business class.

Which is by fat the biggest cost.

Mr Carter says the trip is all work.

Eight days observing the UK elections is not parliamentary work. It is Labour Party work.

I empathise with Chris. I love foreign elections. I’ve even been to a couple, and would love to be in the UK for their elections. A mate of mine has in fact gone there. But he has taken unpaid leave from his job, and paid his own way. And when I have travelled to observe elections, I have funded my own way.

If Chris wants to observe the UK elections for Labour, then Labour should fund his travel.

Mr Carter told 3 News he would be disappointed if we did this story about his European trip. He pointed out he hadn’t been overseas this year, and as Labour’s Foreign Affairs spokesman, travel was part of his job.

Well that is a lie, and I am amazed Three News did not pick it up. Chris was in the Carribean and New York for two and a bit weeks earlier this year.

And travel is part of the job for a Foreign Affairs spokesman – I agree. But only for portfolio related events, and observing the UK election is not a parliamentary task.

As I said, if the UK elections was just for a day or two, then no big fuss – people get weekends off – even on overseas trips. But as far as I can tell, the UK elections are the main rationale for the trip, and the fleeting visits to other countries are secondary.

He says 3 News is unfairly targeting him because of his past spending, and says other Labour MPs have indeed been overseas on holidays this year without media attention.

Of course Chris gets more scrutiny, which is why he should be more restrained. It’s just like people notice a reformed alcoholic having a drink, but in this case a travelaholic.

Mr Carter wouldn’t say who, but it is understood David Parker went to Cuba for more than two weeks and David Cunliffe was hosted by the Japanese government last week.

Dobbing his colleagues in won’t go down well with them I suspect.

But Mr Carter says the scrutiny won’t stop him doing his job, and he intends to go to Pakistan and India later in the year.

And if he is there not to observe elections, but discuss regional security issues, trade policy, foreign policy etc then I support such travel. But the UK trip should not qualify, and I am amazed Phil Goff approved it.

The Herald reports:

Greens co-leader Metiria Turei is backing a plan to expand the travel perks for MPs’ children which potentially opens the way for MPs to claim for taking their children on holiday.

Parliament’s Speaker, Lockwood Smith, revealed last week that he was considering changing the rules to allow the children to travel anywhere in New Zealand to join their MP parent rather than just between their home and Wellington.

School-aged children now get four return trips to Wellington a year to allow them to see their MP parent while he or she is working in Parliament.

However, Dr Smith said most children could travel only during the school holidays – when the House was in recess and few MPs were in Wellington.

He believed more flexibility was warranted but said he did not intend to make it more expensive or expand it beyond the equivalent of four trips a year. A financial cap was one possibility.

The current policy seems reasonable to most people. The job requires MPs to spend half their year in Wellington, so their school age kids can travel down once per term, or more likely once per school holidays.

It is tempting to then go along with the argument that as few MPs are in Wellington during school holidays, the travel policy should be more flexible and wllow them to travel to other areas to be with their MP parent.

However I think this does change the nature of the policy, from a clearly work related policy, to something that could end up subsidising private holidays – and that is something which I don’t think is appropriate.

Any rule change could stipulate that the perk was to be used only when the MP was on work trips rather than private holidays.

She said MPs often spent the holiday recesses working elsewhere around the country rather than in their hometowns.

Ms Turei said she had no issue with limiting the number of trips, but it made sense for children to travel to wherever their parents were, rather than just Wellington.

“That’s the point, really. Especially for those who have younger children, it can get difficult to see them.”

If the Speaker does change the eligibility, then Metiria’s suggestion of only allowing it to accompany an MP on a work trip has merit, as that would be more palatable than what will be seen as a subsidy for private holidays.

Something that the Speaker may wish to reflect upon, is how the Remuneration Authority currently treats the policy on dependants’ domestic air travel.

You see the Remuneration Authority calculates a total remuneration level for an MP, and then deducts off that total package, the private value of some of the perks.

For example 5% of the average cost of MPs’ air travel is deemed of private benefit, as is 45% of the average costs of spouses’ air travel and 100% of MPs’ international air travel. So these are all deducted from the total remuneration package to calculate an MPs salary.

What I find interesting is what the Remuneration Authority said in their last detailed determination in 2003 on dependents’ air travel:

Dependants’ domestic air travel

4.5 The average cost of this per member is $2,208. The IRD has assessed that all of this constitutes remuneration. The Authority has made no allowance for this in the calculation of the package value as it believes that members should be able to have their children visit them in Wellington at the taxpayers’ expense.

So unlike even an MPs own air travel (which is deemed 5% private) the Remuneration Authority had determined that allowing children to travel to Wellington (four times a year for school age) is a legitimate 100% work related necessity.

But if this is changed to include travel to outside of Wellington, then I would suggest the Remuneration Authority would find that there is now a private benefit to this, and deduct a portion of the cost off an MPs salary calculation (as they do for 45% of spouses travel).

So if the Speaker does make the change, then it may result in MPs having it effectively deducted off their salary – regardless of whether they use it or not.

The Herald approves of the balance in the foreshore & seabed proposal:

Division over the foreshore and seabed sparked a political upheaval, with Maori finally becoming an independent force in Parliament. Five years on, the Government, as part of its post-election agreement with the Maori Party, has revisited the issue. The outcome is an elegant compromise that has more of the attributes of a continuum than a radical response to the much-maligned Foreshore and Seabed Act. The proposal, outlined in a consultation document, will now be the subject of public submissions. It should attract widespread support.

Let’s hope.

The nub of the Government’s plan guarantees recognition of Maori customary rights while safeguarding all New Zealanders’ access to beaches. Central to this is the proposition that no one owns or can own the foreshore and seabed. The area would be called a public domain. Maori would again have the right to go to court to establish customary title, but not freehold title. This differs markedly from the 2004 act, which extinguished claims for customary title by vesting ownership in the Crown.

And the right to go to court is what it is all about, for many.

The Dom Post zeroes in on perks:

Finding the trough too high to get your snout all the way in? Don’t worry, the Speaker will be along with a saw shortly.

Want to treat your electorate committee but don’t want to dip into your own pocket? Don’t worry, just make sure you use the right slush fund.

Want to take the family on the train to Kaikoura for a spot of whale watching but think you’ll need a car while you’re there? Don’t worry, the taxpayer will pay for a driver to bring the ministerial self-drive down from Blenheim – and for another car and driver to take the first driver back.

Just so long as you are a minister of the Crown.

Ouch, very scathing.

And the ODT opines on tasers:

Last weekend Tasers, otherwise known as as “stun guns”, made their debut in the South Island.

Not before time, many would say, given the alarming frequency with which police men and women have been assaulted in recent months. …

Nor does there appear to be any constructive advice forthcoming on how, precisely, police are supposed to deal with drunk, drugged or otherwise crazed individuals who pose an evident risk to the life and health of law enforcement officers, but also to members of the community.

As has been suggested, the committee’s thinking on such matters appears to be devoid of any of the context and harsh reality that faces the police every day in this country.

Which is why we will ignore them.