Post by Crash Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 22:49:13 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 04 Sep 2020 23:02:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be running a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
Not necessarily as you know. In this case Labour sold a building
subject to a lease - they may have received more for the building had
the lease been less favourable to the tenant. In effect Parliamentary
Services are sub-leasing from the party at market rates as agreed by
them. Other parties will have office space paid for by parliamentary
services on the same basis. Both National and Labour have had offices
in that electorate for many years.
Post by Tony Post by Rich80105
It is similar to situations where a building owned by a candidate or a
policital party is used for an eletorae office - a fair rent is
assessed independently and that is paid by Parliamentary Services.
Apparently the Labour Party used to own the building and sold it
subject to the ability to rent the office space at a fixed rental. The
benefit of that commercial arrangement is separate from the fair
rental paid by Parliamentary Services.
I agree it could have been arranged a little better; this appears to
be an attempted slur by a desperate Chris Bishop. Bishop has in fact
been fairly good at pressing the flesh - he keeps a close eye on
community events and makes sure he is seen, and has probably had
reasonable staff to look after walk-in queries and people having
problems. He hasn't achieved much for his electorate however, but the
visibility is I suspect enough to see him re-elected, although the
party vote is likely to take a hit.
Trouble is rich. Labour isn't leasing it at market rates for starters and the profit they make from parliamentary services goes into their coffers undeclared which is NOT legal!
Of course all the money is declared - how else did the Nat-bots find
out about it?
From the various Stuff articles exposing this issue, cited by the OP
It was Stuff journo Thomas Coughlan that exposed the issue- which is
whether the rental profits constitute a donation to the Labour Party
that needs to be declared. Rich are you accusing Thomas Coughlan of
being a 'Nat-bot'?
No I am not - the timing and content of the articles suggest very
strongly that this is a deliberate "leak" by a Nat-bot however. The
only unethical behaviour it has shown is that ''dirty tricks" are not
a matter that has been left in the past.
As in so many of such "information drops" the damage is intended to be
in the headline - it takes a different persepctive when the body of
the message is read, but at least one dim-bulb poster to this group
appears to seldom read more than headlines . . . :
" . . .Andersen decided to comment, saying that the rental
arrangement was signed off by Parliamentary Services and is within the
The rent is very cheap and represents value for money for taxpayers,
leasing electorate offices from private landlords usually costs tens
of thousands of dollars a year.
This is a long-standing arrangement, dating back decades, that
Parliamentary Services are aware of and saves taxpayers, she said.
A very good deal
Andersen was backed up by Parliamentary Service who said the rent
represented a very good deal.
Parliamentary Service pay office lease costs on behalf of members
from their funding entitlements. These entitlements are set and
governed by the Speakers Directions.
The arrangement you mention has been brought to our attention before.
We can confirm that the rent paid for the members office is
substantially below market value and represents a very good deal for
the taxpayer, said a Parliamentary Service spokesman.
Hutt South Labour Electorate Committee (LEC) accounts show the amount
the NZPFU charges in rent is well below what Parliamentary Service is
paying Labour for the rooms.
The local Labour Party was the original owner of the building and has
been leasing rooms in it ever since it was sold to the NZPFU in 1993.
It appears the party has a longstanding agreement with the NZPFU,
dating back to when Parliaments Speaker Trevor Mallard was the local
So instead of a "rort," the arrangement is "substantially below market
value and represents a very good deal for the taxpayer" according to
It would be of interest to know the cost of electorate offices of
Chris Bishop, the electorate MP . . . .