Skip to content

Beatson suggests Key is right on ACC blowout

December 4, 2008

David Beatson at Pundit looks at the ACC imbroglio.

Beatson concludes:-

However, if The Treasury was kept as well informed as the Department of Labour suggests, it would have known as early as June that a significant additional appropriation of funds would be needed by the ACC.

There should have been some reference to the ACC’s requirement for additional funding in The Treasury PREFU and there are no constitutional reasons for keeping it quiet.

Key is right to demand explanations about the absence of any disclosure in the PREFU.

Parker is wrong when he says Nationals’ claims that Labour “covered up ACC cost increases are ridiculous”.

Key has yet to call it a cover up. Perhaps he will – once he learns precisely when and how much ACC Minister Street and Finance Minister Cullen had been told about the ACC’s funding requirements before The Treasury PREFU was finalized at the end of last September.

David Beatson is thus of the view Key is right and indeed may have grounds for calling it a cover-up.

So just what did Maryan Street know and when did she know it? Then what did she or anyone else tell Treasury and Dr Cullen and when?

This one will run for a while and possibly grow in the running.

It does rather look though as if David Parker is the one blowing smoke here, not John Key.

About these ads
5 Comments
  1. December 4, 2008 8:19 pm

    “Does the legislation covering PREFU have penalties for non compliance?”

    I saw something on one of the blogs suggesting several thousand and/or a year in clink. But I doubt there’ll be much done there as Key decides to concentrate on the problems.

    He *has* to report all these transgressions and cock ups to get the public on side for remedial action.. something Bolger was poor at doing in the early 90s when he relied on Richardson’s ideology to make his case for changes.

    What a good thing Key was largely able to resist an ideological approach during the last year or two.. he can now operate in a very pragmatic manner and, of course, the brakes are now off when it comes to borrowing and setting up the odd competitive alternatives to govt spending.

    Question is.. will he get sufficient of a mandate to attack the core problem of too big a state sector?

    JC

  2. adamsmith1922 permalink*
    December 4, 2008 7:45 pm

    JC

    Am looking at some of the latest stuff, as I suspected this is not an ant but a centipede

    Look to see Street, Parker and sundry others ducking for cover

    Does the legislation covering PREFU have penalties for non compliance?

  3. December 4, 2008 7:33 pm

    Labour must throw up a blizzard of misinformation as the blatant disregard for the Fiscal Responsibility Act becomes more apparent as public servents scramble to get the bad news up front. ACC may just be the opening shot with, to date:

    Nonearners blowout $1.3 billion
    Earners blowout $1.3 billion
    Motor vehicle account blown.. increase in car regos and petrol levies
    Reserves account investments of $9-10 billion blown.. by $4 billion?

    JC

Trackbacks

  1. ACC:running interference « The Inquiring Mind
  2. ACC, major scandal « The Inquiring Mind

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 144 other followers

%d bloggers like this: