The A-G’s report into Bill English confirms that he does have a pecuiary interest in the house he sought to rent to the taxpayer for $47k.p.a. Here is the relevant quote: ‘the Crown was renting a property for Mr English from a trust in which he had an interest, and the arrangement was explicitly based on a view that he did not have an interest.’
That means he should never have received the money.
It means his ‘voluntary’ return of the money is no longer voluntary.
It means that the legal construct that said he (somehow) did not have an interest came nowhere near fooling the A-G. She applied common sense instead of legal shading. Bill English is a common sense fellow. He would have known his construct was self serving.
Further it now makes Bill English’s claim that he changed his trust deed ‘for personal and family reasons’, well, incredible. That is, a deceit. The truth, contained in both the A-G’s report and written questions is that Bill English’s family trust was first discussed in officialdom in Nov 08 and by about Dec 3 Bill had a clear idea what he needed to do. He changed the deed in Jan, signed a declaration that he had no pecuniary interest on Feb 1 and the cash flowed until the Dom asked questions months later when expenses were made public for the first time.
So this was a construct.
But I still haven’t got to the bottom of one aspect: given that no Minister has ever before sought to rent their house to the taxpayer at above backbench rates and conditions, new rules needed to be created to allow it. Who did the creating? My only clue is an email from officialdom that says the ‘ninth floor’ did. Mr Key has so far not answered that question. Best I try again.
Pete, while Bill is indeed in the wrong, surely this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black? At least Bill paid the money back before the AG’s report came out.
Seeing as that you now obviously place so much weight on the findings of the AG, why did it take you so long to pay the pledge card money back, even after the AG had warned you several times in advance that you were in the wrong?
Interesting spin, Mr Hodgson. I doubted that Labour would continue digging once they’d found themselves in a big hole of their own creation, then I remembered your party’s poll ratings, how you’ve got so low, and realised you don’t know any better.
Labour said Mr English did not complete his declarations to the Speaker correctly.
The Auditor General reported that “Mr English correctly completed the declarations he was required to as an MP, and provided other information on his accommodation arrangements, in order to claim Wellington accommodation costs.”
Labour said Mr English was not entitled to an accommodation allowance going back many years.
The Auditor General said: “Mr English’s various declarations and claims relating to his “primary place of residence” and accommodation costs were considered and approved as appropriate by the Parliamentary Service or successive Speakers.”
I supposed, incorrectly, that Labour might apologise to Mr English for calling him a fraudster and a money launderer, Mr Hodgson. It appears unlikely such an apology might be forthcoming.
It is probably useful also to note that in the Auditor General’s closing statement, she says: “We acknowledge the co-operation we have received from the Speaker, Mr English, and from staff in the Parliamentary Service, and Ministerial Services while we have been considering these issues.”
You stayed on thread for a long time this time Tim. Balance not and deleted. Trevor
The AG’s report says that no further investigations are necessary. Time to stop flogging a dead horse.
The report said he had an interest in the house, of course no further investigations were necessary, it was blindingly obvious.
Is it possible for you to put up a link to the report so that we can read it in full? Its great that you extracted one quote, but in my experience a single quote from what is an extensive report does make a definitive conclusion.
Isn’t there a name for misusing or creating a document for a pecuniary purpose?
Mr Hodgkin, as a loyal National Party member, I want to thank you sincerely for keeping this beat-up going. These attacks of yours are an essential ingredient in our current opinion poll ratings. The best part of all is that they don’t cost us a penny.
Well done, thou good and faithful servant.
Why did the new AG seem to skirt around the previous AG detailed list of requirements about where was your residence.
Making grand statements about the ‘intention’ of the housing allowances seems to be way way out of the AGs responsibility.
Our does making policy a new part of the job
I am disappointed that the Auditor General is not pursuing this further. Given it was determined that Bill English did have a pecuiary interest in his home (surprise!), I would have thought that this matter would have warranted further investigation.
Good Luck Mr Hodgson.
Oh, and in answer to your question Idiot/Savant: I think the correct term is fraud.
Probably, but it’s not the word you think. An employment agreement is created for a pecuniary purpose.
There is, however, a name for dishonestly using a document for pecuniary advantage, but as the phrase implies, that name would only apply when the action is done dishonestly.
People have asked for links the specific comments on English http://www.oag.govt.nz/whats-new/2009/ministerial-accommodation-entitlements/analysis.htm
THis little gem of Tims had me thinking ..
“The Auditor General said: “Mr English’s various declarations and claims relating to his “primary place of residence” and accommodation costs were considered and approved as appropriate by the Parliamentary Service or successive Speakers.”
Didnt a previous AG rule out some spending before elections that was also approved by the Parliamentary Services.
This whole enquiry seems a complete whitewash, the AG seems to think her job is to create policy and regarding payments previously approved just to rubber stamp the formalities.
There are lots of things to follow up here over time – one of them is the custom and practice of accepting declarations at face value. Clearly the parliamentary service and Speaker Hunt did. Here is the form. To qualify English had to answer yes to the last question on the first page : – http://blog.labour.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/skmbt_c35309080517400.pdf
Btw I think that the AG has probably come up with a more useful approach. But it is no good pretending that is the system in place now or that it was anytime in the last decade.
There are more questions opened up than are answered by this report.
Trev or anyone else out there.
Do you think that there are certain professions e.g. Politicians, Police, Doctors etc who should follow a stricter line of behaviour than what the law/regulations allow?
Or is the law the bottom line of behaviour as it stands at the time, and anything above this line is Ok?
Are not what this is all about.
Yep, comes with a serious charge and penalty as well. When are the police going to get involved?
Draco you like Mallard have a far to narrow focus on life. Just keep on playing the man. With strategy like this no wonder labour are comming a distance 2nd. You are not supplying a valid reason for any alt but Nat. And when you point the finger there is nothing to display that your motives have anything to improve a poor setup for feeding the pigs.
Has anyone else heard how Kate Hazletts profile in her run up to her election to the board contained incorrect information?
two sets of rules??? For the record I agree witht he decisionin this case.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10702684