New Parliament buildings

Written By: - Date published: 8:24 am, November 29th, 2016 - 24 comments
Categories: housing, Parliament, parliamentary spending - Tags: , ,

24 comments on “New Parliament buildings”

  1. John up North 1

    Meanwhile there was talk of selling off RNZ Auckland studio and renting back from the private owner.

    This govts contradictions and hypocrisy knows no bounds, if only there were journalists of caliber and moral fiber to cover these steaming piles of BS.

    • Scott 1.1

      “this government” the proposal is supported by Labour and the Greens. Winston is the only hold-out. It will play into Winston’s hands, regardless of the merit or lack of it.

      The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if National are trying to help Winston out with the timing of it.

    • mac1 1.2

      Not just a private owner, for Key. He said a foreign owner was getting $6 million p.a. for Bowen House. Now I wonder what being a foreign owner has got to do with it?

      • John up North 1.2.1

        So now it’s a big deal we’re exporting $$ by the shipload to “foreign” folk? (bit like water that).

        What about the banks and that loverly (yes, I spell things purposely wrong) deal of exporting 20B for military “needs”.

        Oh! and I wonder who will build these new digs? Chinese connections with imported steel, cement, gib and fittings? Or one of the connected lads closer to home?

    • David C 1.3

      They should be selling RNZ not just the studio. IF indeed anyone would be dumb enough to buy RNZ.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 1.3.1

        The station with the largest radio audience in the country? Obviously you have thought your position through very carefully, and equally obviously, you can’t think your way out of a paper bag.

        • David C 1.3.1.1

          So you do think it will be saleable then?

          I hope the forsale sign goes up soon just to test your theory.

          Tho, unlike you, I dont think anyone would pay a bean for it. As without the taxpayers teet to suck on RNZ would sink like a stone.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 1.3.1.1.1

            Yawn. I don’t care what you think: the only substantive thing you bring to the table is the hatred you feel.

    • save nz 1.4

      Totally agree John up North

      • dukeofurl 1.4.1

        Trouble with that was it was rubbish. The RNZ office in Auckland has been in private ownership since the building was built, the current owner was just selling it , with RNZ to remain as a major tenant.
        The original story was a classic of fake news spread by Claire Curran

  2. michelle 2

    They the ( gnats) sold the last building now they are buying another one with our taxes. I agree with John up North they are hypocrites of the highest order. Time for us to make NZ honest again vote for change and the 99% missing out

  3. greywarshark 3

    @JohnUpNorth

    This govts contradictions and hypocrisy knows no bounds, if only there were journalists of caliber and moral fiber to cover these steaming piles of BS.

    Oh dear, what you say is perfectly true BUT the steaming piles of BS started a while ago now and though added to regularly FAIL TO FRIGHTEN A LARGE NUMBER OF SO-CALLED NZs. They keep on Liking him, he appears as dumb as they are, makes them feel affirmed and they are contented with themselves.

    So these inbred NZs don’t notice how the type has changed shape to chameleons with particularly agile tongues. And unfortunately I have connections of the breed, so am anxious that alien babies don’t pop out of their chests sometime. Scary.

    Adam Bennett puts it well and gives us video in glorious colour, thanks so much for putting it up.
    John Key explains why it’s better for Govt to own essential assets rather than paying private owners for their use:

  4. greywarshark 4

    I liked this repetition of a John Key theme that reveals a lot about his attitudes to government and the people:

    “To be blunt, Winston is doing this purely for political reasons,” Key said at his post-Cabinet press conference.

    Can someone explain how someone in politics can accuse other politicians of doing and saying things for political reasons? Donkey is playing with words and a wide misunderstanding of what politics is about, and what our elected representatives should be doing for us. Anyway in modern society everything that everyone does is political, has political consequences – especially when you are being spied on, controlled, checked in advance of your protest about whatever… yesterday thinking about euthanasia (bad thoughts), latest is thinking about a local body protest. We have got so used to interfering laws in our lives, the police being half a step behind you doesn’t have the shock effect, though it is part of the political climate to do so.

    I remember how in the 60’s swearing in public wasn’t allowed, also peeing in public.
    Now swearing is okay, but questioning political excesses, misappropriation and mismanagement, even corruption, is looked down on alongside p. in p. When a pollie like Winston rejects pusillanimity the reaction is censorious. (Isn’t that a marvellous word for the National government, the sum of its parts, split into syllables, they exceed the whole. They are an ill lot full of pus with bad feeling for sure.)

    • Scott 4.1

      I think the distinction being drawn (and appreciate you may still think it pots and kettles) is doing something you privately think is bad for political gain, and doing things that may be good for the country but nevertheless have a political gain. Hence “purely” political.

      Take the buying of the BMWs. There was no doubt that was a good deal for the government as a major factor in the actual costs is the vehicle’s resale value at the end of use and in that regard the gov did very well on the deal (I think they are sold for more than they cost as there is no duty on the purchase and they retain value more than other options). All in Parliament understood that (or ought to have). But that didn’t stop others trying to make political mileage out of it. That is “purely” political opposition to something.

      I suspect Key, and Little, and the Greens (all but Winston, but maybe him too) see Winston’s opposition to this idea in the same boat. I suspect they are correct.

  5. Draco T Bastard 5

    If the government is using a building then it should own the building as it will be far cheaper than renting it. This will always be true. Thing is, this was known when previous governments sold all the buildings that the government used and started renting.

    The increased government guaranteed profits for the private sector were seen as a Good Thing.

    Now, I wonder if Key and National are going to start to realise that the same applies to natural monopolies such as telecommunications, power and health.

  6. No new parliament buildings until the housing crisis is sorted out.

    Even the Gnats are beginning to realise that renting sucks.

  7. dv 7

    Key said the two new buildings would be “millions and millions of dollars cheaper” than the lease but that would be after 30 to 40 years, he conceded.

    Good to see key can predict 40 years out.
    Maybe he got help from treasury?

  8. michelle 8

    If Key can predict 40 years out why is he not doing anything about super when we all know we will not be able to afford super once all our baby boomers bloom. His he part of a selfish generation he got a state house but others can’t he is selling them and flogging of our assets to foreigners yet he says we want to buy a new building for politicians as 6 million is going to a foreign company in rent/leases. Yes John your party sold our last building and your party is selling our country down the toilet but don’t worry you are still very popular with some.

    • Andrea 8.1

      “we will not be able to afford super”
      This is probably in the same category as ‘people will never be able to run a four minute mile’; ‘everything has already been invented’; ‘flying machines cannot happen’.

      Imagine that we CAN afford Super to cover the bulge in older population, AND many other ‘too expensives’. How might that come to be? Without having untrained people toiling into the later afternoon of their lives.

      It’s possible because we are dealing with a people-made situation, not a natural one.

      Brushing it off into the ‘too hard’ basket… yeah, nah. Plays into the hands of the charlatans who created the problem in the first place.

  9. Nick 9

    Nit Smiths adamant its a special housing area…..

  10. mosa 10

    The peoples house….yeah right.

  11. greywarshark 11

    He’s – She’s a Mod. RIP Ray Columbus.

    And a query for Mod today. Please if you have time could you glance down and see if one of my comments meant for here at New Parliament buildings got sidetracked?
    Just a quick glance. It wasn’t Deep Research. But thanks if you can.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts