• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

A lesson on integrity, accountability and honour

littlefish

Alfrescian
Loyal
Why does SG still have a serving minister who let a dangerous terrorist escape on his watch?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10628440&pnum=0

I wouldn't have sacked Heatley - PM
By Derek Cheng
Updated 1:27 PM Thursday Feb 25, 2010


Prime Minister John Key says he hasn't lost confidence in resigning Housing Minister Phil Heatley and wouldn't have asked him to quit had he not insisted on resigning.

Mr Heatley resigned from his housing and fisheries portfolios this morning over an error in his expense accounts.

Mr Key says he has accepted "with regret" Mr Heatley's resignation.

"I wouldn't have asked him to resign. It would have been my preferred pathway that he chose to stand down [during the Auditor-General's investigation] because I think that's important, but I wouldn't have asked for his resignation. It was the minister himself who offered his resignation and I have respectfully had to accept that."

Mr Key says he's asked the auditor-general to conduct an audit into the ministerial expenses of Mr Heatley.

"Everyone is human and makes mistakes from time to time," Mr Key said.

Mr Key did not rule out bringing him back into Cabinet and returning his ministerial portfolios in the future. But he would wait for the Auditor-General's report.

Article continues below

"This is an example of a minister who takes his responsibilities seriously. It was his decision to offer his resignation."

He said Mr Heatley might have been too hard on himself.

"There's no question that he's used his credit card for inappropriate expenditure. That's a statement of fact.

"His actions have been untidy and they have been careless. It's not a systematic attempt by Mr Heatley to rort the system.

"He has signed a document and a declaration that is inaccurate. That does not mean he intentionally did so."

Mr Heatley's understanding of the rules had been incorrect and his motivations were "genuine and honest", Mr Key said.

Ministerial Services brought the receipts in question to the attention of Mr Key, who asked Mr Heatley about it yesterday morning.

Last night Mr Heatley told Mr Key that he wanted to resign and hand over his accounts to the scrutiny of the Auditor-General, but Mr Key told him he would prefer that he stand down during the Auditor-General process.

He told Mr Heatley to sleep on it, and he would accept whatever decision he came to in the morning. Mr Heatley called to offer his resignation this morning, and it was accepted.

Maurice Williams and David Carter will take up the housing and fisheries portfolios, he said.

At a media conference today, Mr Heatley said he had offered his resignation to Mr Key this morning, and the resignation was accepted.

Click here to read the full statement.

"It's been a privilege to serve the people of New Zealand as a Cabinet minister in this National Government but I believe I've failed to live up my own standard and for that and for that I'm embarrassed and immensely sorry," Mr Heatley said.

"The decision today comes after I've had a closer look at my ministerial credit card expenses covering the past 18 months.

"As I explained earlier this week,I was not as familiar as I should have been with the rules, in fact I was careless."

Mr Key earlier issued a media statement saying he would advise the Governor-General to accept Mr Heatley's resignation.

Speaking to reporters this morning, Mr Heatley apologised and promised to pay back any money that was wrongly billed.

He said his accounts showed an error in addition to that already highlighted this week: an expense claim charging two bottles of wine as "food and beverages".

"But rather than arguing semantics about whether this was deliberately misleading or not, I have decided that this was one step too far and I offered my resignation to the Prime Minister this morning," he said.

"I have no desire to become the focus of distraction for this Government."

The expenses form shows two transactions on August 1, 2009, at the time of the National Party Conference.

They are:

Minister and spouse - CHC airport - $59
Minister and spouse - Dinner $70

Mr Heatley said it was the second transaction that was inaccurate, as he had signed the receipts for both as "Food and Beverage" expenses for the "Minister and spouse".

The receipt is from AMI stadium.

The receipt for $59 is from Barcelona Restaurant at Christchurch Airport.

Mr Heatley said he would stay on in Government as MP for Whangarei and he thanked those who have supported him over the "tough" past few days, including his family and electorate supporters.

When asked if he wanted Mr Key to accept his resignation, he said: "I wanted him to accept it because I meant it. I wanted to resign.

"I haven't lived up to my own standards. I think I need to spend a long time on the back benches."

Mr Key said he had asked Maurice Williamson and David Carter to act in the Housing and Fisheries portfolios for the time being.

Mr Heatley handed in his credit card and paid back about $1100 on Tuesday, when it was revealed he used his ministerial credit card for personal expenses, including a family trip in the South Island.

He made an emotional apology, saying any misuse had been unintentional.

He was close to tears as he cut up his credit card in front of journalists.

Last year, Mr Heatley used a 75 per cent airfare discount available for MPs on a holiday with his wife in the Cook Islands.

In October, it was found he had spent only $813 on his own international ministerial travel, but racked up $11,302 on his MP's perk.

And when Mr Key introduced an MP housing allowance limit at $37,500 a year, Mr Heatley's Wellington residence was found to be $15,838 over budget.

He defended his apartment's cost saying he had young children he wanted to live with in Wellington.

He rented a Wellington apartment for $946 a week, and also owned another he rented out to fellow National MP Louise Upton for $355 a week Mr Heatley, 42, has been Whangarei's electorate MP since 1999.

He served as the National Government's Housing and Fisheries Minister since the last elections.

Mr Heatley is the second minister in John Key's Government to resign, after Richard Worth.

MPs' and ministers' expenses for the October-December 2009 period were released today. Mr Heatley claimed $42,902 during the three months, in line with other ministers' claims.

- with NZ Herald staff


By Derek Cheng | Email Derek
 

zuoom

Alfrescian
Loyal
the issue is because they didn't feel it was their fault.
instead it was the fault of the guys that was supposed to be watching over that terrorist.

furthermore, if he goes, who would take over?
 

Watchman

Alfrescian
Loyal
What's the use of dickhead ministars who are being paid millions who got everything designed and planned .

But coupled with underly low paid foot soldiers who thinks letting them go is lightening of work burden .
 

littlefish

Alfrescian
Loyal
the issue is because they didn't feel it was their fault.
instead it was the fault of the guys that was supposed to be watching over that terrorist.

furthermore, if he goes, who would take over?

If you put it that way, then people at the top will never be accountable or responsible for anything since their decisions will always be carried out by those below them.

Finding someone else to take over should never be a consideration when accountability is at stake.

If you want another example, here is a commercial example where the people at the top did not carry out the work physically themselves but had to bear the consequences.
 

Watchman

Alfrescian
Loyal
littlefish said:
If you put it that way, then people at the top will never be accountable or responsible for anything since their decisions will always be carried out by those below them.

Finding someone else to take over should never be a consideration when accountability is at stake.

Even you have just one responsible guard .
None of this will happen .

Imagine for example 30 prison management crew
with 5 guards .
But in actual work 2 men doing the job .

Do you need to have an expensive nanny
to tell you what to do .
Time to change diapers .
She ask you to go hold this end .
 

jw5

Moderator
Moderator
Loyal
If you put it that way, then people at the top will never be accountable or responsible for anything since their decisions will always be carried out by those below them.

Finding someone else to take over should never be a consideration when accountability is at stake.

If you want another example, here is a commercial example where the people at the top did not carry out the work physically themselves but had to bear the consequences.
Some of them understand these concepts but feel that they are above it.
Some of them understand but feel that their capability precedes these concepts.
Some of them pretend not to understand.
Some of them hope that others will not realize that they understand.
Some of them simply don't understand.
 

zuoom

Alfrescian
Loyal
If you put it that way, then people at the top will never be accountable or responsible for anything since their decisions will always be carried out by those below them.

Finding someone else to take over should never be a consideration when accountability is at stake.

If you want another example, here is a commercial example where the people at the top did not carry out the work physically themselves but had to bear the consequences.
sadly, that's the fact here time and again.

the top man is not picking up the slack.
it was discussed many times in the various forums locally.

there's the honourable thing..... (machiam like those Hara-Kiri, Seppuku stuff.)
there's the "correct" thing. (depends on which side the 3rd party is viewing from.)
and there's the popular thing. (not necessarily correct.)

only time will tell if it was really the correct thing. and that only can be clear when looking back.

it was meant as a joke when finding someone to take over.
that's more of a local sucession planning issue. (e.g.: "When the Boss dies suddenly...." Feb 22nd, 2010 Straits Times, Money section, last page, B22.)

all cases must be view in context and relevancy. is it in the best interest of the nation if the top man leave just because of one incident? is there massive negligence on his part? was it because of him directly? is this black mark so massive that it covers over all the white that was done?

so many questions, so little answers. and they (the top guys) have not been too forth coming with it. in a way, there's a feeling of they treat us (the normal guys) as someone who's ignorant, impressionable , naive... etc.

it's a bit like a mother hen tending to her chicks. over protective perhaps.
and if the mother hen dun protect her chicks, who would? (that could be what they are coming from.)
 

littlefish

Alfrescian
Loyal
all cases must be view in context and relevancy. is it in the best interest of the nation if the top man leave just because of one incident? is there massive negligence on his part? was it because of him directly? is this black mark so massive that it covers over all the white that was done?

And pray tell, who will be the one deciding what are the best interests of the nation? That is exactly why there is a need for the top to take responsibility first when shit happens. Because they have lost the moral high ground to claim they are staying on in the best interests of the nation. Issue is not whether how big the black mark is. Issue is who knows what other black marks there might be (this black mark may just be the only one discovered).

If the public decides later that he shouldn't really be blamed, they can always vote him back.

Didn't the Tan guy who went to Paris for some cooking lessons said that the company does not need his presence to function? Didn't LKY said that the Cabinet did not need the PM to run the country well? If so, what is the problem of taking time to find a successor?
 
Last edited:

Watchman

Alfrescian
Loyal
zuoom said:
only time will tell if it was really the correct thing. and that only can be clear when looking back.

Yes, only time will tell if we ever can forget this national joke .
 

1sickpuppy II

Alfrescian
Loyal
If you think there is still integrity, accountability and honour in this country our cost of living won't be so high, we won't have lost billions in investments, monks won't have ranches in US and charity organisation directors won't be taking 1st class flights and having golden toilet bowls and thier high sallary won't be called peanuts by a minister's wife.
 
Top