Phil Heatley

Back-story

A word political wankers and beltway felchers like to use to talk about someone’s past without actually talking about their past.

Usage: “David Shearer has a great back-story.”

The back-story Labour wants us to hear won’t include that he was number 63 on Labour’s list in 1999, he stood in Whangarei in 2002 and got spanked by Phil Heatley even though Bill English was “Goffing” National at the time, then he trotted off overseas scoring the big bucks, tax free, from the UN. The only Labour MP in parliament currently who has lost more than Shearer is Sue Moroney. Don’t forget that he had the third worst party vote result (-5.5%) in Auckland this election, only Jacinda Ardern and the nobody in Rodney were worse. Bet they miss out all that from his back-story.

But since we all have to look at Shearer’s backstory let’s, what about the back-story of the other Helengnomes Grant Robertson, Chris Hipkins and Jacinda Ardern. These people are all touted as future leaders and front bench contenders for next week.

Let’s hear about their backstories shall we?

Since Labour is wanting to fill in the back-story then let’s do it properly

The Greens have been shrill, especially the child MP, over the MV Rena. But John Armstrong’s article this morning exposes them and their priorities:

Hughes was quick to put Joyce on notice for the supposed slow reaction of Maritime New Zealand.

But not as quick as the Greens would like people to believe.

The fate of the Rena was such a pressing priority for the Greens that they did not see fit to set down a parliamentary question to Joyce on the Thursday before last even though the Rena had struck the Astrolabe reef some 36 hours earlier.

Hughes was instead on the case of another navigation-challenged wanderer of the high seas, quizzing Fisheries Minister Phil Heatley as to whether the penguin Happy Feet had come to an unhappy end as by-catch in the net of a sub-Antarctic trawler.

While Hughes was otherwise engaged, the preliminary stages of what will be an intensely complex salvage operation were already well under way in part because Joyce had given the ship’s owners the hurry up.

The following day saw Hughes switch his attention to the Rena, starting a political circus which continued unabated this week.

So contrary to the Greens, Labour’s and the media hysteric cries of inaction there was in fact plenty of action happening onboard MV Rena from the very first day. I wonder whether Gareth Hughes will apologise for his actions in alarming the population for political gain?

In February 2010 Phil Heatley resigned over two bottle of wine valued at $70.

Key explained the inconsistency in Heatley’s expenses documents.

“It came to my attention yesterday that the documentation used to support Mr Heatley’s expenses claim for $70 in Christchurch last year was incorrect,” Key says.

The expenses claim said the spending was listed as ‘Minister and Spouse: dinner’.

But the credit card receipt showed the card was used for two bottles of wine for his and his wife’s table at the National Party Conference.

“I have asked Mr Heatley to explain the inconsistency and he has indicated to me that this was an unintentional error on his part, and he had not sought to mislead Ministerial Services in the characterisation of his claim.

“However, he feels that he has not lived up to the high standards required of a minister and has resigned his portfolios.”

Phil Heatley was later re-instated once an investigation showed there was no intent in his actions. Contrast that with Five Fingers Feeley attitude for the same value of wine:

“I would struggle to think that any reasonable person would consider a $70 bottle of wine an outlandish recognition … I doubt that any reasonable person would take issue with the use to which the drink was put.”

No remorse, shows intent. Unrepentant. All for the same amount of money.

This isn’t about the value this is about the head of an organisation responsible for maintaining and enforcing high ethical standards in business and government, getting a five finger discount on a bottle of wine and thinking there is nothing at all wrong with that. Phil Heatley knew the difference, he resigned and showed  a refreshing amount of integrity.

What is astounding is the fact that Bill English, who has no responsibility for either the SFO or the State Services Commission sees fit to wade into the debate and pass judgment on what is an employment matter. If I was Labour I’d be loading up a whole heap of questions to Collins and Ryall about the meddling in their portfolios by Bill English.

Phil Heatley has announced a shift in policy for Housing New Zealand – “right people, right house, right location – for the duration of need”. It is an idea that is much needed. State housing was originally set up to provide for need rather than want. It certainly is fairer for those in desperate need for housing who are sitting on a waiting list for Housing New Zealand to review those currently in state housing and assess whether or not they still need the state house or if their circumstances have changed.

This policy change will also ensure that we use the housing stock efficiently so that more people can be housed who are in need. It certainly doesn’t make sense a single woman to live in a four bedroom home. Or to have a two bedroom home over crowded while the single woman remains int eh 4 bedroom house. Circumstances can and do change and it makes sense to review them for all involved.

State housing isn’t a right it is a privilege and one for those in need. The time of people remaining in a state house for their natural life and somehow claiming it is “their” home is outrageous, outmoded, and overdue for replacement. Good on Phil Heatley for changing this policy. It nicely ticks National’s core principle boxes too…especially personal responsibility and moving people toward independence. It also dovetails neatly into the “Buy your own State house” policy announced last year. Labour opposed that and they will never support this policy either, they want state dependence forever.

Watch the pinkos scream now. I just bet they are planning a replay of their outrageous campaign in the 2005 election with fake eviction letters.

National are spinning the message voters don’t care about Pansy Wong’s travel scandal, or minor things like this. They are right on the smaller issue of the travel scandal, but wrong about how this matters.

John Key talked extensively through 2008 about mood and feeling and how important that was to change a government. This mood and feeling does not come about by accident, unless the opposition is useless and cant smack up the government.

What changes momentum rapidly is a view that a government is unethical. It is a mood swing that is hard to reverse, and a good opposition bashes away with seemingly small scandals that build this mood.

National may think that guys like Hodgson are total arseholes going on about stuff that doesn’t matter. This is insular thinking that will bite National, as there will come a time when there are enough scandals to make the swinging voter think National are unethical, and they might as well give someone else a chance. The next lot will suffer from the same process, essentially because politicians are stupid and do dumb things.

Richard Worth, Pansy Wong and Phil Heatley have all eroded a little of National’s credibility. So will the next scandal, and the one after that. Then comes the tipping point when voters think it is time for change.

In line with that I see that the Law Commission has recommended and John Key has agreed that an independent body should be set up to administer MPs salaries, perks and entitlements.

Prime Minister John Key has moved to give the Remuneration Authority more control over setting MPs’ perks and entitlements after a further call for an end to the days of MPs having control over their own entitlements.

Mr Key announced the government would introduce a law change to give the Remuneration Authority control over setting MPs’ entitlements beyond the base salary.

This will go some way to alleviating the fox in charge of the hen-house arrangement that currently exists. Predictably, since he is totally out of touch and too full of his own importance, Lockwood Smith hasn’t taken kindly to the loss of control.

The report says Parliament’s Speaker, Lockwood Smith, has “real reservations” about an independent body setting MPs’ entitlements.

“He is particularly concerned that an independent body would not understand the needs of Parliament,” it says.

“His strong preference would be to continue to use the mechanism of the Speaker’s Directions which are flexible, easy to amend and draw on the experience of the Speaker.”

Sir Geoffrey said the report carefully reflected Dr Smith’s view “but we don’t agree with it”.

Sometimes I despair at Lockwood’s pomposity, talking about the “needs of Parliament” like they are “special needs”. Given some MPs are indeed challenged maybe he is a little bit right on that. Sir Geoffrey Palmer, a man i seldom have any time for, though, has another little surprise for Lockwood Smith.

The commission also says the Parliamentary Service, which makes payments to MPs, should be opened to the Official Information Act (OIA).

This has been previously rejected as well, although parties have started voluntarily issuing details of their MPs’ expenses.

“While the move to greater transparency is commendable, and provides more information about the total spending of MPs, in some respects the disclosure still lacks transparency,” it says.

“The figures do not distinguish between domestic and international flights, or separately identify travel paid for an MP’s spouse or partner and dependant children…clearly, a voluntary regime is not the same as a statutory requirement.”

What a splendid idea. Pity Lockwood Smith didn’t listen to me in the Koru Club a couple of months back when I suggested that if he wanted to become a great Speaker he would do exactly that. He didn’t listen and now he won’t be a great Speaker. Now it is Sir Geoffrey Palmer that will take the kudos and the credit for the suggestion of opening up Parliamentary Services to the OIA.

These are all steps in the right direction, even though old troughers like Lockwood Smith have opposed them tooth and nail. The bring greater clarity and greater transparency to parliament. But none yet have taken up the suggestion to have an Independent Commission Against Corruption. This would be the ultimate step in cleaning up parliament of troughers and rorters. it is a step that needs to be taken. here in New Zealand we have the Speaker handling an inquiry into rorts like Chris Carter, three suits Clayton Cosgrove, Richard Worth, Pansy Wong and Phil Heatley. In Australia they have the ICAC.

The Labor MP for Drummoyne, Angela D’Amore, has been sacked as a parliamentary secretary, but the Premier is refusing to call for her resignation from Parliament after the corruption watchdog found she acted corruptly in falsely claiming thousands of dollars in entitlements for two staff members.

The Independent Commission Against Corruption is also recommending that the Director of Public Prosecutions consider bringing charges against Ms D’Amore, who served as parliamentary secretary to the minister for police and the minister for environment, for two offences of misconduct in public office.

The commission found Ms D’Amore and a staff member Agatha La Manna “engaged in corrupt conduct by falsely claiming sitting day relief payments”.

It recommends “action be taken against Ms La Manna as a public official with a view to dismissing, dispensing with or otherwise terminating her services”.

There is a huge difference between how our parliament handles rorters and how Australia handles them. We seriously needs such a commission here, and we need its purview to be over Parliament and all local bodies and the state sector. I’d relish an ICAC looking into Len Brown’s appointments processes for CCO boards.  If John Key can move that which was previously under the control of parliament and the Speaker to an independent body then why not this step? If the Law Commission can see merit in opening up Parliamentary Services to the OIA then why not an ICAC?

Clarity, transparency and sunlight will give us a much better democracy.

In stark contrast to the Clark years, where ministers got 10 in the sin-bin, Phil Heatley has effectively been dismissed by John Key for misuse of his Ministerial Credit Card and other irregularities which will come in in the goodness of time.

John Key had to do something with other ministers becoming a bit loose with discipline. From this day forward they will have had their attitude adjusted with an effective sacking.

Just by way of comparison, despite taking illegal donations, not declaring the donation and lying to the Privileges Committee, Helen Clark and Labour stuck by Peters till the bitter end. Clark only basically stood him down until after the election but still with full ministerial pay and privileges. Don’t forget the staunch defense of Taito Philip Field until he made the fatal decision to suggest he might go independent and then Labour dumped him faster than  shit at 30,000 feet. John Key has acted and acted fast sending a message to his cabinet and to his caucus that bullshit will not be tolerated.

Phil Heatley will stay on as MP for Whangarei.

More backgrounder so you can understand the Scampi Scandal and why the secret tape was suppressed.

This is the valedictory speech of Ian Ewen-Street.

Richard, in case you hadn’t noticed, Sue is young, beautiful and highly intelligent, whereas I’m…. well, I’m not. Even my kindest friends would describe me as middle-aged, overweight and bald. Richard, that’s not a scandal, it’s a bloody miracle!

But I knew I’d chosen the right woman a few days later when we were walking through the Bowen House tunnel and came across Richard Prebble, so I stopped to introduce them. It’s not often you see him stumped for words, but he uttered not a syllable when Sue greeted him with the words “Hello Richard, thank you for making me famous!” and he was still recovering and backing off towards the travellator when Sue called out – “but watch out for my father, he still wants to kill you!” That’s my girl!!

Yes, the scampi scandal! I can joke about it now, but it was undoubtedly a difficult time for me. But a great lesson in life’s rich tapestry. A great experience in finding out who one’s friends are – or even more pertinently, who one’s friends aren’t!

My sincere thanks to all the members of the Primary Production Committee – especially David Carter, Doug Woolerton, Clayton Cosgrove, Gerry Eckhoff, Dover Samuels, Phil Heatley, Janet Mackey and Harry Duynhoven – I know I became the subject of some wonderful jokes for you, but I am also aware that your friendship and support kept me sane through that time. Thank you!

Working in the PPSC was a real highlight for me. I enjoyed the work, I enjoyed your company – including the support staff of Bob Bunch, Mary Hay and Steven Mitchell – and I shall miss you all.

But I also have to say that I am convinced that you got parts of the scampi inquiry badly wrong. I believe you shot the messenger and allowed the real culprits to get away with perpetrating one of the biggest frauds and one of the gravest injustices in NZ history.

I struggle with the suggestion from some people that there was no evidence of any wrong-doing. There was. Affidavits are sworn evidence. They have convicted murderers in the past. I agree that someone may argue that it may not be possible to string together a long sequence of events and say that they prove a certain outcome, but if you treat each piece of evidence as a piece of a jigsaw puzzle, there are more than enough pieces to see the overall picture of premeditated offending. And please don’t forget the evidence of the people who made submissions to the PPSC, but had their evidence returned because they alleged criminal behaviour and that was outside the terms of reference for the inquiry. How can you weigh up evidence if you send it back to the submitter, especially if you then claim there is no evidence?

If the next government wants to follow up on the scampi issue and restore my faith in the political system, I suggest that a good place to start their enquiries would be Helen Cull QC, the lawyer who convened the State Services Commission inquiry which ran in parallel with the PPSC inquiry. She got it right. She knows pretty much what happened, but her final report does not reflect this because her terms of reference were limited to investigating the role of the Ministry of Fisheries. I believe she should be asked to publish her real findings and the people guilty of raping and pillaging the scampi fishery brought to account.

I think the incoming government should also heed the words of former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer when he described the criticism of the Ministry of Fisheries by both the PPSC and the State Services Commission as the most scathing criticism of a government department in NZ history. But what has happened as a consequence? Did anyone get sacked? Pensioned off? Slapped on the wrist with a wet bus ticket? No, nothing. The then CEO of the Ministry put out a press release saying that the Ministry had been vindicated. They had not. He should have been falling on his sword, but instead he continued the fantasy within the Ministry that somehow they are beyond the law, that they can ignore the rulings of the High Court and the Court of Appeal with impunity. And that they can ignore Parliament.

I believe the Ministry should also be made aware of their responsibilities under the Fisheries Act (and international treaties) to address the social and economic well-being of coastal communities. It is simply unacceptable that small fishers in such fisheries as cockles, whelks, geoducs, paddle-crabs, pilchards and others can be put out of business and their lives destroyed by the whim of ministry officials. The RMA is a tool in the toolbox of the management of fisheries, it is not an end in itself. And it most certainly should not be there for the purpose of hugely enriching a small number of fishers at the expense of others and the ecological sustainability of the fishery.

It is my opinion that this is a Ministry which needs a thorough shake-up in the upper echelons of the bureaucracy and imbued with the realization that they are public servants. They are paid to serve the public interest and they are there to manage the ecological sustainability of the fisheries of this country.

Well, my site has taken a hammering since posting the infamous secret scampi video. Now by way of a backrounder here is some filler information that tells you why this video is so explosive. It is from Hansard and the debate on Scampi. When you read this you can see why Winston Raymond peters, 63, List MP of no fixed abode is going to be squirmingthat the video has now seen the light of day. You would also do well to read Question 5 from the other day as well.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT): On 16 October 2001 Winston Peters, the leader of the New Zealand First Party, issued a press release. It was titled: “Gross incompetence in fisheries. Heads need to roll.” He was calling for a dismissal of the chief executive of the Ministry of Fisheries, and he claimed that the ministry was guilty of gross incompetence, faulty allocation of scampi quota, wanton disregard for due process, and unlawful treatment of fishers. He called on the Minister of Fisheries to invoke an immediate inquiry. He said that the allocation of scampi was to be taken away from the ministry, as it could not be trusted. Those were very serious allegations, and some even called them reckless. It was classic Winston Peters innuendo.

Six months later, on 24 April 2002, in the general debate-this very debate we are having now-Winston Peters lambasted the Minister of Fisheries for not taking action. He accused the Ministry of Fisheries of condoning corruption, aiding and abetting corruption, and involving itself in that corruption. Winston Peters said: “I will produce evidence that the ministry knowingly condoned that corruption.” He went on further to say: “In the next few weeks I intend to demonstrate with voluminous evidence and affidavits why this ministry should be removed from its job and the Serious Fraud Office asked, belatedly, to do its job.”

Eventually, a parliamentary inquiry into the scampi allegations was instigated by the Primary Production Committee, following a very high-profile Assignment programme that screened on television. One would have expected Winston Peters, having made those allegations, to rejoice at having got that inquiry but, oh no, he gave not a whisper, not a murmur. He quickly replaced Doug Woolerton, the permanent New Zealand First member on that select committee, and then spent his time focusing on narrowing and closing the terms of reference for the committee. It was all, one would say, rather curious.

The Primary Production Committee sat for several months, consumed an enormous amount of Parliament’s time, and reported on 2 December 2003. Winston Peters produced no evidence to support the reckless allegations he had made, and he certainly did not table the “voluminous evidence” he had promised. He was as quiet as a lamb, with barely a whisper.

Last night on television further allegations were made, and reference was made to a sworn affidavit. The functioning of this Parliament and its processes was raised, and the programme focused on a former member of this House-perhaps one of the most unsavoury members who has passed through this House-a Mr Ross Meurant.

It seems that a former member of Parliament, Ross Meurant, was engaged by Simunovich Fisheries as an adviser and lobbyist. Concurrent with that, of course-and a lot of people do not realise this-Mr Meurant was also hired by the New Zealand First Party and was on its payroll; actually, on the taxpayers’ payroll through the Parliamentary Service.

We were told that Mr Meurant attended several meetings, together with principals of Simunovich Fisheries. Mr Meurant’s former partner of some 9 years, Yvonne Theresa Dossetter, swears that Ross Meurant met at the Simunovich’s olive farm following the infamous Kermadec restaurant meal, and the proposal was put that the payment of $300,000 to Meurant would be a good investment for the Simunovich business. It is alleged that the deed was done, and that the money would be available from an Australian bank account. Subsequently, it is alleged that Mr Meurant boasted to Yvonne Dosseter, who has sworn an affidavit, that the money was paid, and that Meurant indeed had it in a brown paper bag.
This is an extremely serious allegation, and it brings into question in the public’s mind the functioning of our representative democracy. What we have to realise is that Winston Peters was in there with him.