Groser and McCully’s booze breaches the rules

Written By: - Date published: 11:04 am, June 21st, 2010 - 31 comments
Categories: accountability - Tags: ,

A lot of people have been saying the rules on spending on ministerial credit cards are unclear. Maybe they are in some respects, but one thing they are clear on is alcohol, which is a big problem for Tim Groser and Murray McCully. I/S at No Right Turn explains:

John Key is making excuses for [McCully and Groser] saying:

“Obviously ministers have the right to have a drink from their mini-bar…”

Actually, they don’t – and its right there in black and white in the rules on Travel, Accommodation, Attendance, and Communication Services Available to Members of the Executive:

2. Examples of goods and services that will generally not be paid for:

[…]

(i) Alcohol unless it relates to a portfolio/ministerial function

Groser has spent thousands of dollars of our money on minibar drinks, which is clearly against the rules. Murray McCully, too, has spent thousands on minibars.

They’ve got to go.

31 comments on “Groser and McCully’s booze breaches the rules ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. hnz 1
    21 June 2010 at 11:29 am

    How much was it that Groser spent on piscos? It was over a couple of nights, right. Easy to make it your shout when one isn’t using one’s own plastic. After that much booze I doubt if his APEC colleagues had much in the way of productive talk other than, ‘You da man!’ ‘No, you da man!’ and so on.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 1.1
      21 June 2010 at 11:45 am

      These documents only cover 3 months for national ministers, but 5 years for labour. There was a previous release which covered the first 12 months or so of nationals term.
      So you have to combine the two sets to get the amounts spent by well known piss heads McCully & Groser

    • the pinkpostman 1.2
      21 June 2010 at 3:54 pm

      By the way are these the members of government who tell us they are concerned with the “drinking Culture ” of NZ’sWhat a lot of hypocritical
      sleazy creeps they are.

  2. Santi 2
    21 June 2010 at 11:30 am

    I agree. You should also add Carter’s flowers and Jones’ porn to the indiscretions.

    • Bright Red 2.1
      21 June 2010 at 11:49 am

      Carter and Jones have already lost their portfolios

    • Alexandra 2.2
      21 June 2010 at 7:11 pm

      Santi, maybe the reason this post is focussed on grosser & and mccully is because they have been defended by the PM not punished, unlike Carter and Jones who have been severely dealt too by their leader.

  3. BLiP 3
    21 June 2010 at 11:52 am

    Perhaps when John Key promised us all higher standards he really meant Ministers would have to commit a higher level of offence before action would be taking.

  4. RedLogix 4
    21 June 2010 at 12:12 pm

    Oh for God’s sake Eddie … you know perfectly well that currently serving Nat Minister’s spending is off limits and immune to criticism. It’s only ex-Labour Ministers whose spending can be scrutinised.

    I’m not even being all that ironic. The subterranian script that everyone is following is that left wing MP’s should conduct themselves with absolute probity, humility and wear NZ made suits of sackcloth, while there is a positive expectation that right wing MP’s will demonstrate the conspicuous consumption behaviours of the affluent and aspirational.

    It’s not even a double standard in the normal sense; it’s how people have been subconciously scripted to feel about this. When money is the proxy for human value, then rich people are better than ordinary ones…and hence the rules do not apply to them.

    • Rosy 4.1
      21 June 2010 at 1:10 pm

      I agree RedLogic, and that is also why the right can get away with smear tactics and the left cannot. There’s got to be some way of combating this… has any leftwing party, anywhere, managed to successfully hammer a rightwing government for financial impropriety and how did they do it?

      • David 4.1.1
        21 June 2010 at 2:12 pm

        Sure Rosy, the way the left handled it was to ensure no-one saw the info! I am afraid that has changed now. Whats the matter. dont you like transperancy?

        • Rosy 4.1.1.1
          21 June 2010 at 3:08 pm

          It’s not the transparency – the more the better, However it seems transparency only goes one-way. Huge calls for Labour politicians to account for spending, but no disection of nact excuses. The MSM should finish the job they started. And then there’re housing scams, PEDA etc etc

          • the pinkpostman 4.1.1.1.1
            21 June 2010 at 3:39 pm

            Well said Rosie . The media and Tory propogander machines have been having a ball over so called labour scandals. They have simply forgot heir own dubious spending . They have not and will not go beyond the last Labour term.It would be most interesting to investigate previous National spending.

  5. deemac 5
    21 June 2010 at 12:20 pm

    Groser says it was entertaining but that would be a bar bill, not the minibar. You only use the minibar if you a solitary drinker (rather worrying) or entertaining someone you don’t want to be seen in public with (even more worrying really)

    • ghostwhowalksnz 5.1
      21 June 2010 at 1:39 pm

      They sort of get around this by saying ‘sometimes’ they have drinks with guests in their room.

      But obviously one 3cl bottle of whiskey doesnt entertain anyone.
      By the key words are ‘function’. Drinks with the SPS doesnt count – Its surprisisng how often McCully has a meal and wine with his SPS and charges the taxpayer , even while in Auckland his so called home city.

    • David 5.2
      21 June 2010 at 2:12 pm

      Or wish to have a private chat….

  6. Tigger 6
    21 June 2010 at 12:49 pm

    Did anyone check Worth’s spending? Might give us clues as to why he got the boot.

  7. tsmithfield 7
    21 June 2010 at 3:14 pm

    Spending on alcohol is OK because it doesn’t attract the same purient interest that porn movies and massages do.

    • Bright Red 7.1
      21 June 2010 at 3:25 pm

      clearly

    • Craig Glen Eden 7.2
      21 June 2010 at 3:36 pm

      The reason Key is not doing anything about it is, he has been doing it to.
      So what’s he going to say, oh shit sorry Phil ( Heatley)for making you do a public maculpa performance now its my turn and mine will have to be double because not only am I a bullshitter I’m a hypocrite as well and hey old chaps you good fellows ( Grosser etal) have to pay yours back as well. Na he knows full well all those people he gave wine to wont spill the beans on him or else they wont get any more wine.

      The MSM are a disgrace in this country that’s for sure.

      Spam word “ordinary”

  8. Trevor Mallard 8
    21 June 2010 at 3:37 pm

    But if Key holds those two to account does he fire himself as well? http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2010/06/21/jonathan-coleman-why-did-your-leader-spend/

  9. the pinkpostman 9
    21 June 2010 at 3:47 pm

    How about investigating Muldoon’s booze spending .Remember the Herald front page photo of him drunk and leering at show girls in Paris . I bet that spend up was on the taxpayer. How about Bolger and co’s booze spending . Key has looked at the Last Labour spending so let him open the books on National spending now.

    • ianmac 9.1
      21 June 2010 at 4:37 pm

      Wash your mouth out Postman! Exposing good honest MP’s to public ridicule is not a decent thing to do.
      However, those scurrilous Labour scroungers are a different target which the PM will distance himself from, in order for the MSM to explore in the name of Transparency.

    • RobertM 9.2
      21 June 2010 at 4:55 pm

      Yes but Muldoon was a boy, and one dosen’t want to get puritanical and hypocritical. Wasn’t the |T|ruth headline,’rooting pig discovered in Ngaio’ the honest truth as he seemed to have a number of mistress’s and even did the decent thing and effectively legalised the girls with, ‘ the massage parlour amendment act l977’ or whatever.
      But Muldoon was right about one thing the hypocriscy and two faced nature of MFAT. Which is were Grosser and McCully’s boozing with the Eurocrats and Japs comes in. MFAT desire is for NZ to join the EEC and become a state of Australia. Probably only ten percent of NZers want that. MFAT and their favourite son, Grosser are the ultimate representative of the political class.
      |The latest outrage being proposed by Grosser and McCully is the depending defence reviews likely desire to get a third second hand Anzac frigate. A 14 year old tub that will not be solid and stable enough for Southern Ocean resource protection or fast or well enough armed to fight in the Asian littorals. The Anzac frigates were a conception of Kim Beazleys chief adviser , the ANU communist Hugh White and are intended to look good to impress and appease themilitaritistic Australian public but at the same time appease the Indonesians that they are useless and no threat or influence. The Kokums submarines and their intended long term replacement with 12 submarines that are really beyond Australia’s management and tech capabilities term the same function. MFAT have gradually over the last decade systematically sabotaged project protector, disarming the OPVs of effective 57 or 76mm gun, selecting an original rather than off the shelf Irish Vindicator or Meko l00 design and putting the empahsis on largely uselly IPVs rather than more OPVs. MFAT could be regarded as corrupt, desperate not to contaminate itself with real knowledge of defence systems and selecting safe establishment ‘peace’ advisers like the nuggedy ex RN commander Robert |Green and his love interest Kate Dewes. All cosy in MFAT. With a possible sell out of the whales, a few rockets towards Grosser, Palmer and McCully are useful.
      Have another whiskey boys.

  10. GPT 10
    21 June 2010 at 5:08 pm

    I would have thought moving on from this topic would be pretty sensible given the debacle for Labour and Goff of the last couple of weeks (in fairness Goff has not been helped by Carter for example).

    Secondly is not the answer in the quote: “(i) Alcohol unless it relates to a portfolio/ministerial function”

    Ministerial function – what were they overseas for again? What, part of their jobs as ministers?

    • felix 10.1
      21 June 2010 at 5:18 pm

      Ah so now you want to move on. Gee I wonder why…

      • GPT 10.1.1
        21 June 2010 at 8:25 pm

        Sorry I should have been clearer. From a political point of view it can only help that Labour and Labour activists keep this issue burning as it has caused far more turmoil for Labour and Anderton than National. I would have thought Labour supporters would have wanted to draw a line under the whole issue and move on (hopefully with a repetent, or at least silent, Chris Carter).

        It’s a stretch to argue that the spending of Groser and McCully is not part of their jobs (unless you have evidence I have not seen). It is no brainer that paying for porn movies is outside of their job – do you really want to keep having that argument?

  11. deemac 11
    21 June 2010 at 10:30 pm

    correct Felix – and we still haven’t cleared up the deputy speaker’s rental arrangements, funny how the media got bored with that (tens of thousands of dollars involved) but have plenty of space for a few hundred dollars when it’s a Labour ex-minister