NBR columnist David Cohen wrote in the print edition of the paper last Friday that Labour leader Andrew Little hadn’t paid a bill he’d sent him.
Cohen had been asked to analyse Little’s communication, did so, sent the bill and followed up with phone calls and emails.
It was only yesterday, four months late and after Steven Joyce raised the matter in parliament, that Little paid up:
Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce attacked Little over his stance on employment law changes after revealing Little had not settled his bill with National Business Review columnist David Cohen.
Writing in the NBR last week Cohen confirmed he did paid work for Little to help him secure the Labour leadership but four months later was still waiting for the cheque.
Joyce said he raised the overdue bill because it was important for Parliamentarians to “pay people promptly”.
Little insisted afterward that the bill had been paid – but would not confirm or deny that the payment had only been put through after Joyce raised the matter in Parliament.
“It’s been paid today.”
Little insisted afterward that the bill had been paid – but would not confirm or deny that the payment had only been put through after Joyce raised the matter in Parliament.
“It’s been paid today.”
He said the bill had been sent in good faith but went to his campaign team rather than himself.
“It was on that person’s desk and flitted around some others,” Little said.
“Had it come to me at the time he remitted it, it would have been paid at that time.”
Little would not say what time he paid the bill and whether it was after Joyce raised the issue.
“It hasn’t been paid as a result of what Steven Joyce said in the House but it’s been paid.” . . .
Can Little be blamed for the tardiness of a member of his campaign team and the others whose desks the invoice flitted around?
At least as much as it shows a problem with processes and not just in a huge hole in the way bills are dealt with but also in media monitoring.
The leader of the Labour Party won’t’ have time to read every column inch that’s written but someone in his office ought to be monitoring the media for every mention of him.
I read Cohen’s column last week and it’s difficult to believe that either no-one in Little’s office, caucus and the wider party did.
It is easier to wonder if they did and didn’t alert him.
If no-one monitors the media, or isn’t doing it properly, Little has a problem. If people who are supposed to support him read the story and didn’t tell him, he’s got an even bigger problem.
Four months is more than a little late to pay a bill, especially when you’re leading a party that purports to stand up for workers and wants to court small business people.
There’s no smaller business than a one-man one.
Update: Cohen makes this point on Radio NZ:
. . . He sent in his report and invoice four months ago.
“During that time I followed up the invoice, I called his office, I spoke with Matt McCarten, his Chief of Staff, many emails were exchanged and it became abundantly clear that the waiter had been stiffed, as it were.”
Mr Cohen said he found this ironic given Mr Little’s recent attempts to connect with small business and the self-employed.
“Andew Little has been crafting excellent speeches on the pressures felt by small business, by freelancers, by sole operators and he’s been committing himself to lessening the stress and strain that one in five New Zealanders, like me, experience.
“Now, you can’t really hold forth on these subjects and not look after your own creditors.”
Mr Joyce was being questioned by one of Mr Little’s Labour MPs about whether the government intended to take a tougher line on zero hour contracts.
Mr Joyce used that as an opportunity to take a potshot at Mr Little.
“This is obviously not a zero-hour contract.
“It could perhaps be better described as a zero-payment contract – the employer in this case being then-leadership aspirant for the Labour Party, one Andrew Little, the current Labour leader.” . .
A Chief of Staff and unionist who doesn’t understand the importance of paying bills properly?
Where’s his concern for the worker and where are his political antennae?
Posted by homepaddock 
