The slippery standards of Mr Key

21 comments on “The slippery standards of Mr Key ”

• Comments are now closed

1. BLiP 1

   3 November 2009 at 9:36 am

   Geeze – I wish John Key was my boss. I’d like to give him the one-fingered salute while I took money out of one account to cover an expense from another. Still, that’s what money-changing is all about I guess.
2. Pat 2

   3 November 2009 at 9:40 am

   The post is suggesting that only Ministers should be banned from using their MP travel perks, but it is OK for every other MP from every other party to do so.

   As I understand it, every MP is entitled to some level of travel perk, based on length of service. Rodney Hides perk would be larger than Nicki Kayes, Phil Goffs would be larger than Charles Chavel.

   Key has said that it is up to every individual MP whether they use it, but if they do so then it will be subject to public scrutiny. This time around Rodney Hide has copped it, last time it was Chris Carter. Next time the figures come out, it will be someone else.

   As it is Melbourne Cup day, a sweepstake would be in order. My money is on Anderton.
   • snoozer 2.1

     3 November 2009 at 9:53 am

     it’s not about whether there should be a travel allowance or not, it’s about the PM promising to set a standard then not enforcing it.

     … like the post says in the last paragraph
     • Pat 2.1.1

       3 November 2009 at 10:00 am

       As you well know there are two types of travel allownaces available to Ministers – the ministerial allowance, and their MP travel perk.

       As I understand, Hide did not take his girlfriend using the ministerial allowance.

       I’d be interested to know how you think Key can “enforce” an MP from using his/her MP travel perk.
       • BLiP 2.1.1.1

         3 November 2009 at 10:08 am

         He probably under estimated his fellow Ministers’ willingness to contribute positively towards establishing the new standards he promised the tax payers while under estimating their willingness to expose him as a hollow man. Sucker, eh?
       • Pascal's bookie 2.1.1.2

         3 November 2009 at 10:08 am

         Ask Richard Worth. (but don’t ask Key why he’s gone.)

         Speaking of which. Anyone seen the promised defamation suits yet?
       • snoozer 2.1.1.3

         3 November 2009 at 10:17 am

         “I’d be interested to know how you think Key can “enforce’ an MP from using his/her MP travel perk.”

         Um, he can tell them not to do it. They’re only ministers at his pleasure.

         I don’t see why the fact the taxpayer money comes from one fund or another should matter.

         Key set a very clear standard:

         “I’ve told them if they want to take their partner, they can do it, but they pay for it’.

         How is using the Ministerial allowance or the Parliamentary allowance payin for it themselves?
       • felix 2.1.1.4

         3 November 2009 at 10:19 am

         Like this:

         “From today, no MP from my party will spend any public money on their spouses’ travel expenses. I thought I’d made myself clear earlier but apparently a few snouts are still stuck in the trough so I’m making myself very clear now. Other parties can do as they see fit, of course, but I’m taking the lead on this issue.”

         Not so hard, is it? Not if he wants to, that is.
         • Pat 2.1.1.4.1

           3 November 2009 at 10:30 am

           If Key was clever enough to play a long game, he would quietly issue that directive to not only his MP’s but also all former National MP’s entitled to the perk.

           Then release the figures for all current and former MP’s 3 months before the election, and Whammo! watch the public backlash against Labour.
           • Pascal's bookie 2.1.1.4.1.1

             3 November 2009 at 10:35 am

             Cabinet would roll him by lunchtime
           • felix 2.1.1.4.1.2

             3 November 2009 at 10:38 am

             Yep, if his objective is purely political that’d be an idea.

             If, on the other hand, he’s actually serious about the spending issue he should just say it out loud – take the high ground and watch all the other parties fall into line.

             And they all would (except ACT of course, they’re entitled.)
           • snoozer 2.1.1.4.1.3

             3 November 2009 at 11:35 am

             oh dear, pat.

             Under your scenario, National MPs would still have travel allowance bills, just not for their spouses… and that wouldn’t necessarily make their total bills smaller than other MPs’

             the money is paid by the Parliamentary Service and the statement issued every three months by the PS don’t breakdown each MP’s spending into what they spent on themselves and what they spent on their spouses – MPs would have to supply that information themselves (the PS is not subject to the OIA)
3. Pat 3

   3 November 2009 at 10:51 am

   “…watch all the other parties fall into line.”

   I suspect that over time the quarterly release of figures is going to do this anyway, because unless you want the public blowtorch on your taxpayer funded family holiday, you are going to pay for much of it yourself.

   You are smart enough to know that Hide and Douglas did nothing wrong in terms of the rules, but their refusal to “martyr” themselves gives them a major credibility issue and is going to hurt them where it matters most – the perception of voters.

   Surely other parties have watched this and are saying to themselves “Let’s not go there”.
   • felix 3.1

     3 November 2009 at 11:18 am

     One would hope so – although we’ve all overestimated them before 🙂
4. Tigger 4

   3 November 2009 at 11:43 am

   I have no problem with the perk. I have problems with the hypocrisy of telling the rest of us to tighten our belts. If it doesn’t go both ways then it shouldn’t go either. Either Ministers (who are the government so must lead by example) start tightening up on the extra spending or else they can shut up about the rest of us having to do the same.
5. RichardR 5

   3 November 2009 at 3:12 pm

   I have seen no evidence that $25,000 was spent on taking his partner. Can anyone substantiate this number?
   • snoozer 5.1

     3 November 2009 at 3:31 pm

     read the news websites, richard, for god’s sake.

     or try this little site I found – google.co.nz
6. RichardR 6

   3 November 2009 at 3:45 pm

   So everything reported in the news is accurate?
   My understanding is that the $25,000 was extrapolated from the ministers expenses and does not accurately reflect the additional expenditure.
   • snoozer 6.1

     3 November 2009 at 4:04 pm

     RichardR, you obviously still haven’t read the articles. They contain interviews with Hide. There is no dispute that he spent $25,000 of taxpayer money on flights for his girlfriend.

     I wonder what’s in your head. You seem desperate not to accept what everyone involved (including Hide) says is true. You’re searching for a way out of facing the truth that no-one else denies – Hide took the money.

     Now, face that truth, and where does it leave you? What now do you think of Hide and Key, the man who set the stand then signed off on Hide’s spending as he breached it?
   • BLiP 6.2

     3 November 2009 at 6:53 pm

     Its actually more than $25,000. Disgusting, eh?
7. Homo Domesticus 7

   3 November 2009 at 7:43 pm

   Friends, aw shucks glove puppet donKey talks tough but will not deliver. He got tough on useless Richard Worth, although we don’t really know what Dr Worth really did wrong, but he will not do the same to a Cabinet colleague. He is not that stupid; he knows that those that pulls his strings, his crony mates the international currency speculators, Business Roundtable, Brash and Douglas etc will not like it.

   Homo d.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS