Editorial: Heatley too ready to use public money

Phil Heatley after announcing his resignation. Photo / Mitchell

Opinion

There is absolutely no question that Phil Heatley had to resign from his ministerial posts. The Prime Minister's suggestion that the Whangarei MP was being too hard on himself was wide of the mark. The errors in Mr Heatley's ministerial expense accounts are merely the latest in a series of episodes that reveal a readiness to grasp at taxpayer money. If he was a middling, steady hand in the housing and fishing portfolios, he displayed anything but good judgment in being near the head of the queue to claim expenses and allowances at the very time these were coming under the hottest of spotlights here and in Britain.

The sums that led to Mr Heatley's departure, and the lapse that finally triggered it, are relatively innocuous. This week, he paid back $1260 after it was revealed he had used his ministerial credit card outside the rules. His billing included $175 on liquor and food at the National Party conference in Christchurch last August, and almost $1000 on travel during a ministerial trip to the South Island with his family. According to Mr Heatley, the catalyst for his resignation was the subsequent revelation of an inconsistency in his expense reconciliations.

He described this as an "unintentional error". That may be so, but it is more difficult to explain his previous expenses transgressions as being "careless" and the result of his unfamiliarity with the rules. His behaviour palls even further when other incidents during his short ministerial career are noted. His name was too often among the first to crop up when accommodation and travel perks came under scrutiny.

Mr Heatley's ministerial accommodation cost the taxpayer $53,338 a year, which became over the odds when the Prime Minister imposed a $37,5000 annual allowance last September. And, having moved into the taxpayer-funded home when he became a minister, he rented the apartment he had lived in as an Opposition MP to a party colleague, for which the taxpayer also picked up the bill. Additionally, he used his travel perk for a holiday with his wife in the Cook Islands, at a cost to the taxpayer of $1848.

If all this did not represent abuse of the system, it certainly indicated a willingness to wring everything from it. It smacked of a minister with an inflated idea of entitlement and an inability to understand either the consequences of a new era of disclosure or the need for ministers to show restraint in difficult economic times.

It's highly possible that more will come from an investigation into Mr Heatley's expenses by the Auditor-General. The relative insignificance of the incorrect documentation for his expenses claim for food and beverage at a Christchurch restaurant, which he said prompted his resignation, suggests as much. If Mr Heatley was not concerned about further repercussions, he might have been inclined to try to brazen things out. As it is, the audit will prolong the matter in a way that will not please the Prime Minister. But it is a further step towards delivering the correct degree of transparency to ministers' and MPs' expenses.

That scrutiny should also signal the end of ministerial credit cards. The Prime Minister does not have one. Many of his ministers do not carry one, either. Those who do, use them sparingly, and do not need them. They travel with officials, who can take care of incidental expenses. This week, Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee cut up his ministerial credit card, apologised, and repaid $151.90 spent outside the rules.

At much the same time, Mr Heatley's credit card also went under the knife. Those acts said everything about the value of the cards. They serve no purpose. No minister needs to carry one. Let's end their temptation to "put it on the taxpayer".