There will be a lot more of this to come

[hesi]

Terry Sarten: Politicians are going places ... at our expense

26 Aug, 2018 2:05pm

 3 minutes to read

Simon Bridges - spend first, count the cost later.

By: Terry Sarten

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is it with our politicians?

The Leader of the Opposition – I had to Google to recall his name — Simon Bridges spent $113,973 on travel between April to June. This is a lot of taxpayer's money.

The cost was one thing, but the fact that he was surprised when the total was tallied shows how MPs are out of touch with the real world.

These are the same politicians who often demand the public sector manage its budgets carefully.

 

Most organisations, including government departments, insists business travel is within a set budget and needs to be approved before it is booked.

There are forms to be filled, boxes to be ticked, a reasoned case given for travel to ABC for the purposes of XYZ. A senior manager then decides whether this is an effective use of the budget or not.

As is noted in the Simon Bridges travel costs, there is no budget, there is no approval mechanism and it is only totalled after it has already been spent. In Parliament's case this is taxpayer-funded.

Why are they allowed to spend so much and add it up afterwards?

Many politicians talk about the need for people — and the country — to live within our means, but ignore their own advice when it comes to travel expenses.

There should, like most organisations, be a capped budget for travel. Spend it and its gone — no more limos across the hinterland, no more trips to overseas conferences. Talk to people using video conferencing or simply read the conference papers.

Do the sums — it is cheaper to travel a day earlier and get a good night's sleep in a hotel than it is to fly First Class.

It is interesting the current Government has decided to end bonus payments to state service chief executives.

It has always been a puzzle why incentives in the form of bonuses seem to be needed for chief executives and senior staff when, for some reason, they do not work for those on lower salaries.

If giving workers more money for being productive really worked, then it would apply to everyone from the janitor and the secretaries up to the chief executive.

In business there has always been a suspicion paying a chief executive a bonus for cutting costs often means they will get one if they simply sack half the staff.

While beating the drum about politicians throwing taxpayers' money about, it is worth noting that part of the Government's coalition agreement made with NZ First included paving the racetracks so the horses don't get their hoofs muddy.

The talk is this work will be supported by $30 million of taxpayers' cash. Part of the reasoning is that horse racing employs a lot of people and race meetings are called off if the track is too wet; the flaw in this argument is that the horse racing industry is not just race day.

The $30 million would fund the charity Riding for the Disabled forever but, of course, it lacks the glamour of thoroughbred racing.

The $30 million could create more paediatric beds in every health board or provide a new pair of winter shoes for every child living in a low-income household — instead it will be used to lay down synthetic tracks so that horse races won't be cancelled when it rains.

If I was a gambler, I'd put my money on the future of children as a better bet than a rainy day at the racetrack.

*Terry Sarten (aka Tel) is a writer, musician and social worker — feedback: tgs@inspire.net.nz

[Reefton]

He's only travelling around the Country trying to keep business confidence up to minimise the hard work National will have to do to get the economy sorted out after the next election.

It might be a few quid but nothing compared to what Teeth and the bewildered one are blowing every week on consultants and committees. new projects and basically pissing it up against the wall. 

[hesi]

Was really referring to the highlighted part about racing, at the end of the article

[Newmarket]

25 minutes ago, Reefton said:

He's only travelling around the Country trying to keep business confidence up to minimise the hard work National will have to do to get the economy sorted out after the next election.

It might be a few quid but nothing compared to what Teeth and the bewildered one are blowing every week on consultants and committees. new projects and basically pissing it up against the wall. 

If National are serious about getting back in power, they have to get rid of Bridges. He is a complete fool, can hardly string a few words together. Other Nat members see him has a joke, everyone knows the leak has come from within. 

 

[Thomass]

That's not Annie Sartons grandson is it?

He should know better...Im picking he lives in Ponsonby and consumes cous cous

..he's clogged up and quite possibly needs a colonic...down one of those dirty Ponsonby alley ways...I've had one there and it worked wonders...just read me

[hesi]

The concern is about the dark storm clouds that are starting to appear on the horizon.

FFS don't start talking about Simon, or you will have the copy and pasters joining in from the dark side

While beating the drum about politicians throwing taxpayers' money about, it is worth noting that part of the Government's coalition agreement made with NZ First included paving the racetracks so the horses don't get their hoofs muddy.

The talk is this work will be supported by $30 million of taxpayers' cash. Part of the reasoning is that horse racing employs a lot of people and race meetings are called off if the track is too wet; the flaw in this argument is that the horse racing industry is not just race day.

The $30 million would fund the charity Riding for the Disabled forever but, of course, it lacks the glamour of thoroughbred racing.

The $30 million could create more paediatric beds in every health board or provide a new pair of winter shoes for every child living in a low-income household — instead it will be used to lay down synthetic tracks so that horse races won't be cancelled when it rains.

If I was a gambler, I'd put my money on the future of children as a better bet than a rainy day at the racetrack.

[mumbles]

I wonder how racing would go if the industry was privatised,privately owned tracks etc.Govt could still get their cut from the gambling side.

 

[Hedley]

The industry already is 'privatised' most of the tracks and clubs are privately owned and managed

[Reefton]

1 hour ago, hesi said:

Was really referring to the highlighted part about racing, at the end of the article

I was just looking for a bite

 

[Reefton]

35 minutes ago, mumbles said:

I wonder how racing would go if the industry was privatised,privately owned tracks etc.Govt could still get their cut from the gambling side.

 

I've been on about that for years.  The Clubs should set up their own agency, probably based in the Cooks.  It would be subject to the International tax laws(Controlled Foreign Companies) but would simply pay fees to the Clubs(and maybe other sporting bodies and race clubs under the race fields type legislation) for providing product.  The Clubs of course would be able to deduct the costs of providing the profit(ie Stakes and raceday costs) but pay tax on the rest of their profits. Cut out the NZRB overhead(and maybe NZTR though they would still need to fund some sort of administration and regulatory type organisation) and take control of their own destiny.

In regards the gaming duties though they would not be conducting business in NZ so they would not be payable(but income tax on the profits obviously would).  Garner and those guys up in arms about the industry getting  government funds conveniently forget all the gaming duty they pay Teeth and her cronies

Make sure the deductions are low(ish) and the international punters will flock in.

Edited August 26, 2018 by Reefton

[hesi]

16 minutes ago, Reefton said:

I was just looking for a bite

 

Wrong channel