Let’s avoid an expenses side-show

30 comments on “Let’s avoid an expenses side-show ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Graeme 1

   11 June 2009 at 9:43 am

   Do you want to know how much the CEO of NZ Post spends on accomodation, or the deputy assistant head of pen and pencil procurement for the Minister of Something spends on bics?

   Neither do I. But I’m entitled to ask under the OIA, and they have to have a good reason not to tell me. Should we amend the law so that spending of this sort isn’t subject to public scrutiny?
   • Maynard J 1.1

     11 June 2009 at 10:07 am

     Is there any way to amend the law in favour of disclosure from the Parliamentary service that would not lead to the obvious outcome?

     The CEO of NZ post can do their job in the circumstances – I am not sure that the same holds true for MPs, though I realise that is not justification to be excluded from the OIA in of itself.
     • Graeme 1.1.1

       11 June 2009 at 10:25 am

       Probably not.

       But I’m not sure it would be as bad as you think. The UK has had this for a couple of years. There were a few stories about flights and taxis a few years ago, but then people got over it. There were even questions about why MP X wasn’t spending money, wasn’t he doing his job properly, etc.

       For a year or two this will be something. People won’t be up in arms and then we’ll all get over it. And then, like the special dinner prisoners get at Christmas (the same as usual except with a Christmas mince pie) there will be a three or four paragraph story once a year about the big spenders. Unless something big happens. Personally, I’d like not to have to rely on leaks to find out that MPs are erroneously claiming the out-of-town allowance despite living in Wellington.
       • Rich 1.1.1.1

         11 June 2009 at 11:16 am

         I agree with Graeme. People will tire of it, unless there’s something exciting the MPs have been up to like visiting Hawaii five times a year.

         (Does Annette King get out to the Chathams much?)
         • Maynard J 1.1.1.1.1

           11 June 2009 at 12:07 pm

           That is a lot of faith to put in the media – and a lot of people would enjoy these silly ‘scandals’. There is no ‘right’ amount of spending so whoever spent more than most would find themselves wasing a lot of time explaining.

           I also consider it akin to polls – somewhat interesting, but not news, yet they drive half the stories in the build up to an election at the expense of real news.

           There is probably no way around it though
         • Graeme 1.1.1.1.2

           11 June 2009 at 5:29 pm

           I don’t need faith. If they run stupid stories, they run stupid stories. We shouldn’t ban them from running stupid stories.

           This is pretty much the argument being run: people are spending public money, but if we let people ask what they’re spending public money on, the media might be irresponsible with that information, and run articles which are shrill and over the top, and detract from real stories.

           You could almost make the same argument about bills. They’re proposing to pass a law that will affect is, but if we let people know what bills the government is proposing, then the might be irresponsible with that information, and run articles which are shrill and over the top, and detract from real stories…
2. Tigger 2

   11 June 2009 at 9:52 am

   I agree, no more sideshows. I swear, it’s like watching TV while the house burns down around you… At some point the public will wake from this slumber and realise they’ve been utterly dorked – and that’s when they will punish those who did the dorking.
3. jarbury 3

   11 June 2009 at 10:18 am

   I don’t necessarily think all parties should have to make a big song and dance about releasing the information, but it makes sense for it to not be exempt from the OIA.
4. StephenR 4

   11 June 2009 at 10:50 am

   Why would anyone care that Boscawen was travelling Air NZ? It’s one airline company among many, provides a service in exchange for money like all the others…
   • Duncan 4.1

     11 June 2009 at 10:57 am

     Owned by the taxpayer. Though he probably approves of their employee relations.
5. StephenR 5

   11 June 2009 at 11:25 am

   The Greens make a point of consuming less, that including flying, so it’s a legitimate question for Turei. ACT make a point of less state ownership of most things, especially explicitly commercial enterprises, but i hardly think that extends to discouraging use of state-owned services. Indeed he’d be mad not to use whatever provides the best prices…
   • felix 5.1

     11 June 2009 at 11:46 am

     “The Greens make a point of consuming less, that including flying, so it’s a legitimate question for Turei.”

     I think the point was that she was being asked why she travelled by air at all.

     So unless you seriously think Green mps should travel by horse and carriage (and just think of the methane emissions!) then it’s hardly legitimate. Certainly no more so than the Boscowan hypothetical. (Hint: they’re both absurd).
     • djp 5.1.1

       11 June 2009 at 12:58 pm

       So the message is “emit less carbon (unless it is inconvenient)”?

       hmmm.. an inconvenient emission
       • felix 5.1.1.1

         11 June 2009 at 1:43 pm

         Emit more carbon than what?
   • Rich 5.2

     11 June 2009 at 2:28 pm

     Given that MPs are required to be physically around parliament and expected to visit the rest of the country, I can’t see how Green or any other MPs can avoid flying.

     Introducing video confererencing for parliament would be one solution, maybe.
6. Maggie 6

   11 June 2009 at 11:55 am

   Oh, dear. Some people’s brains couldn’t be prised open using a pneumatic drill.
   Turei should, of course, walk everywhere. Boscawen should travel only with privately-operate companies, Shearer only with state run ones and Melissa Lee only in a chaffeur driven limo.
   • Maynard J 6.1

     11 June 2009 at 12:02 pm

     The ALCP candidate would have to ride in the canni-bus, but Judy Turner would be in trouble – trying to go up the middle of the road every time. Presumably the Destiny candidate would rely on faith, and Tamaki’s Harley.
7. VT aka daVince 7

   11 June 2009 at 12:28 pm

   Here’s a worrying thought: does this mean I trust MPs more than the media? Well, perhaps not – but I would rather see the media attend to the issues of substance, and avoid the sideshows.

   Okay, so much for you then.. so now what about the steal deals..? The watchables, the omitted, the committed (on behalf)..

   Instance: under a public/private partnership (PPP) where someone for instance travels freebie to pick up a briefcase full o’ private ‘congregation’ cash at an airport someplace.

   Knowing who they’re meetin’ is pretty relevant in these cases I’d say… and no way is this sort of thing just on the movies.. hell those guys have gotten it from real.. from crime scenery of so many ilks these days..
8. Maggie 8

   11 June 2009 at 12:34 pm

   Before left the editor’s chair at the Dom Post to become head honcho of the Newspaper Publishers Association, Tim Pankhurst was quoted as describing producing a newspaper as “like being in show business.”

   Sez it all, really……
   • VT aka daVince 8.1

     11 June 2009 at 5:36 pm

     show and no-tell…heh..
9. burt 9

   11 June 2009 at 12:49 pm

   Dear Guest post

   Please open your wallet for me to take what I want and please trust me that I have spent it well and in your best interests. On that note – in your best interests I won’t bother counting what I take or telling you what I spent it on because then I would have less to spend on myself your best interests.

   Lovely that you agree being accountable is a hassle – now go back to sleep.
10. Anita 10

    11 June 2009 at 12:59 pm

    Guest poster,

    Can you make any argument at all that MPs expenses should be protected from the OIA?

    You seem to be claiming that they should be, but your grounds have nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of releasing them, it’s simply a grizzle about the media’s behaviour. While that grizzle is justified it has nothing to do with the ethics or principles underpinning transparency. The fact that you’re arguing against transparency for entirely irrelevant and spurious grounds makes you sound like any member of the current National and ACT parties.

    BTW I am kinda disturbed about an argument against transparency being posted without attribution on a “labour movement” blog as, by not claiming the opinion as your own, you imply that it is the view of The Standard, and therefore the wider labour movement. I, for one, seriously doubt that there are many in the labour movement who are against transparency.
    • Eddie 10.1

      11 June 2009 at 1:13 pm

      Anita, it’s clearly not the view of The Standard. Only articles published with “The Standard” as the author are the view of The Standard. This was a guest post sent in by a regular commenter here who preferred to remain anonymous so as to avoid abuse for expressing an unpopular opinion. We decided to respect that.

      The Standard is a forum for people to express their individual views, and that includes an increasing number of readers and commenters. It doesn’t claim to speak for the entire labour movement, it’s simply a forum for people with labour movement values to express their opinions. These will often differ.

      For the record, I’m in favour of making parliamentary services subject to the OIA. Just haven’t got round to writing anything about it yet as I find the whole issue kind of boring.

      I know you’ve got your own blog and all, but as always you or anyone else is welcome to write a counter piece as a guest post here.
      • Anita 10.1.1

        11 June 2009 at 1:39 pm

        🙂 Yeah, I guess part of my problem is that this post doesn’t have a sign-off on it (which most gues post’s do) so it feels less OpEd and more TS-line. If that makes any sense as a distinction 🙂
11. leftrightout 11

    11 June 2009 at 1:24 pm

    Bryce Edward’s very good post on this.

    We very much need to know their expenses. It begs the question are they spending our money to keep themselves in power? The fact that MP’s are reluctant to open up the expenses would suggest they have something to hide.
    • VT aka daVince 11.1

      11 June 2009 at 5:43 pm

      I didn’t get BE’s blog yet.. your point is well-stated on power retention and ‘hide’.

      I would be terribly miffed, I would, if any such member was doing both.. as funding a strip-joint chain across the land.. for instance.. (just because they aint recession-proof stateside)…
12. Maynard J 12

    11 June 2009 at 2:38 pm

    Anita: there are precedents for privacy and confidentiality in law, when the cost of revealing information outweights society’s desire for openness and transparency (not a financial cost), and in other situations where privacy and confidentiality are a core requirement of maintaining the effectiveness of a service.

    Examples of the first type are evidence/witness supression and media censorship (as in ratings/banning of offensive material). Examples of the second type are lawyer/client, doctor/patient privilege, the activities of the GCSB/SAS.

    Interestingly enough (I read the Espiner article) the claim by MPs is that they need this confidentality in order to best represent their constituents:

    “The claim has always been that MPs need to protect their privacy and that of their constituents. And I guess it’s fair that not every single flight and hotel needs to be itemised.”

    That does not sit well with me. Knowing that my MP flew up to my electorate would not be a violation of that privacy.

    I doubt that MPs could openly argue that revealing their expenses would hinder their abilities to be MPs, but I think it could be the case – whether this is enough to justify an OIA exemption is the point, I guess (tying in your point about the complaint with the justifications).

    If there are serious doubts about MPs’ expenses, then the first problem must be with the validation of those expenses. The article leftrightout linked to was a good example of that at a glance.
    • Anita 12.1

      11 June 2009 at 2:54 pm

      *nod*nods*

      The solution I have, however, is the OIA 🙂 The OIA as it stands has lots of protection for privacy, security, maintenance of law, commercial sensitivity and so on. So extend coverage of the OIA to MP’s expenses (and other parliamentary information) and let the usual protections take care of it. If the extension were to identify the need for a new class of protection, then create the new class.

      We should trust the OIA, we should believe in the principle of transparency.
13. Eddie 13

    11 June 2009 at 6:11 pm

    I see that following Anita’s comments No Right Turn’s now running a post called “The Standard vs Transparency”.

    A more accurate headline would be “The Standard publishes guest post”, but nevermind.

    Makes you wonder whether it’s worth publishing unpopular opinions if you’re going to be accused of crimes against transparency just for allowing the debate.
14. jarbury 14

    11 June 2009 at 6:53 pm

    I think it has been a good post in that it’s produced some very interesting discussion about the pros and cons of expenses disclosure, rather than everyone just jumping on the same bandwagon.

    While I am a big fan of disclosing expenses, I do also understand the potential for the media to jump on stuff that is actually pretty fair enough. We saw a little bit of that when the Greens disclosed their expenses.

    However, even though these concerns are legitimate I think that people would fairly quickly realise what expenses are normal and necessary, and what (if anything) is out of order. It will certainly ensure the MPs keep their houses in order. And if it makes them extra-cautious then that’s OK. It’s less of my tax dollars being spent after all.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS