The government should lease, rather than own, any buildings such as schools/?

On average, everyone strongly disagrees with nonconsensus between 69 voters.

Reasons To Disagree

I can't see any advantage in this, if it was finacialy viable for the private sector to own these and lease them back then it must also be viable for the private sector to own them.

Although it might look good on paper, you can only assume some cost savings in the construction of the buildings, or space around them.

The government shouldn't own the buildings in the first place.

We are wasting our school resources. Schools in NZ are only open for approx. 162 days in each year the rest of the time is spent on holiday of one sort or another. This leads to millions of dollars worth of valuable real estate being tied up empty. Rather than rent school premises why not "double term" them. sell off half of the schools and realise on the real estate. Split the resulting school population into two groups so that one group are on holiday whilst the other group are studying. Splitting the holiday periods into smaller chunks gives everyone a fair go at the accepted holiday season. Then the only time that the schools are completely closed would be Xmas and Easter.

The government has no place in education, people should not rely on them to decide what children should and should not learn. Just look at any government initiative and see how ineffectual they are. Private eduction will always outperform public education.

can we lease some mps fro aussie

Reasons To Agree

Gummint has no legitimate place in business.

Yes, because the Maoris won't let ordinary Kiwis to own the buildings particularly in Auckland City, and are on lease for long periods of time but you never own it properly and they can take advantage of that whereas the Government can take into your account the situation you are in.