David Farrar says it's not the minister's fault, because the department of Internal Affairs didn't tell him. Apparently the concept of ministerial responsibility doesn't apply to National Party ministers.
Trevor Mallard has claimed on Red Alert that there was no obligation to purchase the 32 additional vehicles. Given that he was a cabinet minister at the time the deal was made, his version of events ought to be reliable.
Bill English also admitted on Radio NZ that the Government hadn't looked at the cost of breaking the BMW contract.
I said earlier that we should not judge the Government until we had all the details. The details are now coming in now, and they don't look pretty.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
5 comments:
I welcome comments, but I ask commenters to follow a few simple rules:
1. I delete anonymous comments. Please use either a name or moniker. I am not asking anyone to reveal their secret identity. Just don't call yourself "Anonymous".
2. Please don't abuse or defame others.
3. Moronic or nonsensical comments may be deleted.
4. I don't often exercise the heavy hand of censorship, but I do reserve the right to delete any comment I don't like, for any reason.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Bill English also admitted on Radio NZ that the Government hadn't looked at the cost of breaking the BMW contract. "
ReplyDeleteActually, according to Trevor Mallard/Grant Robertson, there was no "cost of breaking" the contract at all, in terms of penalty provisions or possible damages claim (see http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2011/02/16/obfuscation-on-the-bmws/).
Of course, it still may have made financial sense to take up the replacement option, in that the replacement cost - resale of existing stock is much less now than it would be in (say) 2 years time. But we can't know that ('cause the matter is "commercially sensitive"),
my 1990 BMW 535i SE is still going strong at 245,000km
ReplyDeleteSame engine and transmission.
I've no problems with the government buying european limosines. It's the timing of the purchase, i.e. do they need them now, and the hypocrisy of demanding belt-tightening from others while purchasing said limosines (which are seen as a luxury item) that gets me.
ReplyDeleteDo I recall correctly that the present administration implemented a detailed, line-by-line review of all budgets? Was this expenditure missed during the review, or did the minister responsible not think a few million on european limosines was worthy of his concern? Not enough to be included in an austerity drive? I'd actually be impressed to see said minister taking responsibility on the issue.
Peter Gow - My mid-1990s 3-series motorsport just clicked over 200,000km and is still going strong, too.
Andrew, I read those posts, and while some allowance has to be given to the political point scoring being engaged in by Labour, it does appear that it wasn't necessary to buy these vehicles, and that they could have looked for something cheaper, or alternatively just not upgraded the fleet at all. A bad look, as English would say.
ReplyDeleteA/C - yes, it's the hypocrisy that grates with me.
I drive a 1995 Toyota Corolla hatch. It's a bit beaten up, but I think it could easily fit a minister, and at least two aides, plus the driver. I could buy a fleet of these beauties for the cost of one or two beamers. Corollas have a good resale value too.
Scott,
ReplyDeleteYeah - I saw you quoted them. I guess the financial question is, is it more economical to sell the present cars (for a reported $55k-$60k per car) and buying new at whatever the discounted price BMW are offering, or to wait another couple of years to sell (at a lower 2nd hand price) and buy then, or to wait until the contract expires entirely and see what other contracts can be negotiated. We can't answer that, 'cause they won't tell us the figures.
But on a political level ... a very bad look, indeed.