Breaking: Supreme Court dismisses Maori Council appeal

Written By: - Date published: 3:20 pm, February 27th, 2013 - 127 comments
Categories: Privatisation - Tags:

Unanimous decision by the 5 judges to dismiss the Maori Council’s appeal.

The sale of Mighty River Power will proceed – John Key said that if the decision was this month then they would have it floated by the end of June.  Bill English is hopeful of getting it done by Budget Day, May 16, so that he can present how his estimates of how much capital will be raised ($6 billion best guestimate – including Solid Energy…) are affected by reality.

3News has best coverage:

the Supreme Court ruled the Government’s consultation process with Maori was adequate and that no one owns water and steam.

“The Supreme Court has concluded that the partial privatisation of Mighty River Power will not impair to a material extent the Crown’s ability to remedy any Treaty breach in respect of Maori interests in water,” the judgement says.

However, it did offer some consolation to the Maori Council.

“While the appellants have failed as to the ultimate result, they nonetheless succeeded on an important point of principle, namely that the Crown was bound to comply with the principles of the Treaty before deciding to sell the shares.”

So the Government may have to offer redress for Maori interests in water, but they can do so in other equivalent and meaningful ways if need be.

127 comments on “Breaking: Supreme Court dismisses Maori Council appeal ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. just saying 1
    27 February 2013 at 3:36 pm

    Multiple expletives deleted.

    So disappointing.

  2. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 2
    27 February 2013 at 3:38 pm

    Yay!

  3. fenderviper 3
    27 February 2013 at 3:39 pm

    🙁

  4. Steady Course 4
    27 February 2013 at 3:39 pm

    Common Sense prevails!

    • muzza 4.1
      27 February 2013 at 3:48 pm

      In what way is hocking off energy production/supply companies common sense..

      • Steady Course 4.1.1
        27 February 2013 at 4:09 pm

        The court case, in a nutshell was for Maori rights in water, not selling the assets. A good call. Now we just need Sian to throw out the 4g claim as well.

    • Draco T Bastard 4.2
      27 February 2013 at 4:30 pm

      No, stupidity prevails. The country will much worse off after this just as we’re much worse off due to the sale of Telecom.

      • NZ Groover 4.2.1
        27 February 2013 at 5:50 pm

        “Worse off due to the sale of Telecom!!!??” An astounding statement. Consumers have benefitted hugely from that sale. An example, in 1980 it used to cost $1.04 a minute to call Wellington. $1.04! In 1980 dollars how much would that be now?

        • wtl 4.2.1.1
          27 February 2013 at 6:01 pm

          LOL. The drop in the price of phone calls over the last 33 years is entirely due to privatization???

          • Colonial Viper 4.2.1.1.1
            27 February 2013 at 6:05 pm

            Given that Telecom has extracted billions out of the economy since privatisation, the argument can be made that the consumer is still being fleeced.

            • Draco T Bastard 4.2.1.1.1.1
              27 February 2013 at 6:19 pm

              Actually, considering that we’re now having to pay through our taxes what we would have got from our phone bills alone is proof that we’re being fleeced – no argument about it.

          • lprent 4.2.1.1.2
            27 February 2013 at 6:44 pm

            WTF: Now you’ll be telling me that computers are still using tubes or Nortel is still selling switches

          • NZ Groover 4.2.1.1.3
            1 March 2013 at 5:38 pm

            No it’s mainly due to competition which never would have happened if the post office remained government controlled and regulated.

        • Draco T Bastard 4.2.1.2
          27 February 2013 at 6:13 pm

          Also, the only advantages that you can mention are solely due to technology improvements and those are far behind what they would have been. NZ is worse off by ~$17 which Telecom has taken out of our economy. $17b which, if Telecom was still a state asset would have been re-invested into the network which means that we wouldn’t now be paying even more billions to Telecom to put in place FttH and we would have started getting FttH about 5 to 10 years ago.

          If Telecom hadn’t been sold, telecommunications would actually be even cheaper now because we wouldn’t have the dead weight loss of profit from all the multitude of competing telecommunications companies. You have noticed that we pay more here than other places haven’t you?

          Keep Our Assets
          Table of sales proceeds and foregone dividends resulting from the sale of BNZ, Telecom, and Contact

          The astounding statement is yours in your blind belief that we’re better off.

        • Pascal's bookie 4.2.1.3
          27 February 2013 at 6:17 pm

          *laugh*

          Are seriously saying it was privatisation that caused the drop in tolls?

    • geoff 4.3
      27 February 2013 at 4:33 pm

      Treating New Zealander’s like shit prevails.

      FTFY

  5. vto 5
    27 February 2013 at 3:40 pm

    Let’s just sell everything.

    I don’t see the advantage in owning anything, that is just something the silly rich do………

    • Draco T Bastard 5.1
      27 February 2013 at 4:31 pm

      +1

      Amazing how people just don’t grok that. Selling community wealth makes the community poorer and the people who buy it richer.

  6. Saccharomyces 6
    27 February 2013 at 3:41 pm

    Best bit of news all week.

    • Colonial Viper 6.1
      27 February 2013 at 5:02 pm

      The kleptocrats celebrate

    • Tiresias 6.2
      27 February 2013 at 11:32 pm

      I’m not disappointed with the court decision and I believe no-one can, or should, ‘own’ water – although that wasn’t what the court actually decided.

      Had Maori won this one, how long before some bright Iwi decided it owned the wind that turned the blades of all and any wind-generators set up around the country?

      I am disappointed it means the asset sale will go ahead as a) it means the Crown will be giving up a useful revenue stream for a short-term gain, probably at an undervalue, and b) I regard electricity as a public good as vital for the health of society as clean water and effective sewerage, none of which should be used for private gain.

      However if the sale does go ahead I’m sitting on up to $20,000 to apply for shares with, if the numbers stack up to give a better return than leaving it in the bank, ‘cos I don’t see any point being a martyr to my beliefs for no purpose.

      • Arfamo 6.2.1
        27 February 2013 at 11:56 pm

        It will be interesting to see how their consumer prices stack up against the other powercos over the next few years. I don’t have any confidence in any projections the government will make about the likely returns. The nats seem to have a propensity for just pulling numbers out of the top of their heads. I’ve been burned in the sharemarket once already some years back when the papers were extolling the company’s virtues and describing them as a potential blue chip investment.

      • Don't worry be happy 6.2.2
        28 February 2013 at 6:58 am

        Man, you’re kinda sweet with your $20,000 to ‘invest’…stupid but sweet. Like a wee kiddie clutching your pennies waiting in line for the goodies to come on sale. Have you not noticed that the bullies and crooks don’t queue?

  7. muzza 7
    27 February 2013 at 3:46 pm

    In no way is this a surprise – Will await the details, suffice to say, imagine the pressure that was exerted to get these decisions.

    If these go ahead, then its open season on whats left of NZ.

    Hey, but anyone can marry anyone now, so its all ok!

    We are in a right old mess, of that there is no doubt!

    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 7.1
      27 February 2013 at 3:48 pm

      …imagine the pressure that was exerted to get these decisions.

      You accusing Sian Elias of being corrupt?

      Got a link for that?

      • muzza 7.1.1
        27 February 2013 at 3:54 pm

        No I’m saying the game is rigged, read into what you want

        The players get to the positions they’re in, for reasons which people don’t want to accept!

        The stench eminates from every sleazy deal!

        • McFlock 7.1.1.1
          27 February 2013 at 4:01 pm

          so no but yes.

          Fuck sake, you’re more slippery than key at being nailed down to any meaningful statement.

        • quartz 7.1.1.2
          27 February 2013 at 4:01 pm

          At the risk of offending my fellow lefties I don’t think that this would have been a very good way to stop the sale of Mighty River. Ends and means and all that.

        • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 7.1.1.3
          27 February 2013 at 4:02 pm

          You don’t know much about Sian Elias, do you?

          http://www.nzherald.co.nz/who-runs-nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1500896&objectid=10117345

          They call her Sian “Biased” but not for the reasons you are alleging.

          • marty mars 7.1.1.3.1
            27 February 2013 at 4:09 pm

            Good link ta tgffkao

          • muzza 7.1.1.3.2
            27 February 2013 at 4:48 pm

            Bro thats old , old news, and a very long way from the stench surrounding the formation of the supreme court.

            I guess the Maori Water Council will be off to the privy council next then eh …

            • onsos 7.1.1.3.2.1
              27 February 2013 at 5:00 pm

              I guess you don’t understand our legal system.

              • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                27 February 2013 at 5:08 pm

                Oh, God. If you were the last Labour Government and you wanted to stack the highest Court of the land in favour of enabling “sleazy deals” (as you call them), why would you pick to lead the Court a lawyer famous for her left and maori interest sympathies?

                Dufus.

                • Arfamo …
                  27 February 2013 at 5:16 pm

                  That’s a fair point. I intend to read the whole decision before rushing to decry it.

                • muzza …
                  27 February 2013 at 5:19 pm

                  Onsos – Yeah, nah

                  Gormless Fool – See its not about left and right, at the top level, thats just a ruse created for keeping the plebs at eachothers throats, just like same sex marriages, and *racism*, gotta make sure that people are all caught up and confused/divided/consumed with *dramatic issues,* while the top level make off like bandits with the *wealth*

    • Gosman 7.2
      27 February 2013 at 4:32 pm

      “If these go ahead, then its open season on whats left of NZ”

      On what basis do you make this claim?

      Previous privatisations did not lead to the situation you envisage so why would these partial sell downs be any different?

    • QoT 7.3
      27 February 2013 at 5:05 pm

      Hey, but anyone can marry anyone now, so its all ok!

      Hey muzza, you might want to consider running a “personal research project” where you pretend to know how the legislative process works.

      • muzza 7.3.1
        27 February 2013 at 5:25 pm

        You’re such an easy wind up, 1 hr 19m, from my original comment…

        Much less time in between than that though in reality, wasn’t it though eh Queenie!

        You were all over that like a supreme court judge on verdict day!

        • QoT 7.3.1.1
          27 February 2013 at 8:55 pm

          … Um, yeah, muzza, I totally spend 24 hours a day scanning the huge number of comments on this blog just for you, because you are a unique and beautiful snowflake and I’m totally obsessed with you. What are you wearing right now? Is it part of your personal research project? I love it when you pretend your idiocy is a social experiment, it makes me all gooey. 🙄

          • muzza 7.3.1.1.1
            27 February 2013 at 9:20 pm

            That comment is worse than the first one above come on queenie, you can do better than that can’t you, can’t you!

            Word of advise, jumping on someone’s comment like you did, leaves little wiggle room, and results in having to use the limited and transparent cover options, of sarcasm and misdirection as a come back, which is not any prettier than your *gooeyness*!

            Perhaps step up your hygiene regiment eh!

  8. marty mars 8
    27 February 2013 at 4:01 pm

    The biggest joke is that these judges think the consultation process was adequate. Ha fucken ha.

    • TighyRighty 8.1
      27 February 2013 at 4:07 pm

      Oh boo hoo. I’d consider the election a pretty meaningful consultation process.

      We won you lost etc

      • Arfamo 8.1.1
        27 February 2013 at 4:14 pm

        From memory, Polls showed even among National voters asset sales were not favoured by a large margin. The election can’t be called a meaningful consultation process on asset sales if that was the case.

        • TightyRighty 8.1.1.1
          27 February 2013 at 4:36 pm

          Yea, but two major parties campaigned vigorously against them and still lost. It was an election issue and people voted in favour of it. Guess your polls only show that people care fuck all about who owns them as long as the correct party is in government.

          • Gosman 8.1.1.1.1
            27 February 2013 at 5:00 pm

            I’d go as far to say it was THE election issue. Noone on the left has been able to explain what other policy received a mandate. Their problem seems to be that they don’t think the National party has a democratic mandate at all. This is troubling for our democracy in my mind.

            • Pascal's bookie 8.1.1.1.1.1
              27 February 2013 at 5:04 pm

              Nope.

              the argument is pretty simple gos.

              Governments get their mandate via the confidence of the house.

              The mandate s a mandate to govern. Claiming a mandate for any given policy is more tricky. You’d need to know how and why people voted the way they did. The best way to do that would be by polling on the policy, no?

              • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                27 February 2013 at 6:20 pm

                The best way to do that would be by polling on the policy, no?

                Unless it is about smacking, of course. Then it is different.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  27 February 2013 at 6:33 pm

                  Would have loved to have a referendum on smacking. Unfortunately, we had a leading question instead designed to get the answer that it got that didn’t even address the repeal of s59.

                  • Don't worry be happy …
                    28 February 2013 at 7:07 am

                    The wording on that ‘anti smacking referendum’…beginning with the commonly used name itself, was so confusing that I was asked to sign it by a Kindy teacher who firmly believed that the signatures she was collecting were “anti smacking” not as was the case….signatures on a petition to allow children to continue to be assaulted. I had to get her to read the preamble before she would believe me!

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  27 February 2013 at 6:35 pm

                  Don’t remember anyone claiming they had a specific mandate for that policy.

                  Governments do thing they don’t have specific mandates for all the time.

            • Arfamo 8.1.1.1.1.2
              27 February 2013 at 5:06 pm

              I don’t think National had a mandate for asset sales. I think National was the only party that looked like it could complete a term without a change of leader in the middle. The thousands who didn’t vote, rather than vote for National or anyone else, will be the ones who decide the next election. Most of them will have been well hurt in the pocket by these National knobs.

              • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                27 February 2013 at 6:28 pm

                Yes. This is what the polls show us. Oh, hang on…

          • onsos 8.1.1.1.2
            27 February 2013 at 5:05 pm

            A larger group of voters voted for parties that opposed asset sales through the election campaign (Labour+Greens+NZF+Mana+Maori) that voted for parties that supported asset sales (National+ACT). I’d say the voters did not deliver a ‘mandate’, whatever a mandate is.

            • Draco T Bastard 8.1.1.1.2.1
              27 February 2013 at 6:35 pm

              A mandate is more than 50% support. Something that no single party has seen since the early 1950s and which even the parties in government that do support the sales don’t have.

              • Matthew Hooton …
                27 February 2013 at 10:54 pm

                In which case, no government since the 1950s has had a mandate to do anything and they should all have just presided over the status quo. A shame about the anti-nuclear policy, homosexual law reform, civil unions, Sue Bradford’s anti-child violence legislation etc etc etc. All our governments, lacking mandates, should just have left things the way Sid Holland found them. Redbaiter would agree!

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  28 February 2013 at 7:03 am

                  Just because it happened in the past doesn’t mean that it should happen now or in the future. Hell, that was one of the reasons why we went to MMP. More change needed but it should be done via referendum. All major policy changes should.

                  • TheContrarian …
                    28 February 2013 at 9:34 am

                    Draco – I have mentioned this to you before. There were ~230 bills presented on all types of policy last year. Are you going to have a referendum on all of them?
                    And if not – how do you decide what is important enough to have a referendum on or not?

    • Pascal's bookie 8.2
      27 February 2013 at 4:09 pm

      Do you know where tv3 got this from:

      “no one owns water and steam.”

      Ruling seems to say that if there is found to be a breach then the crown will have to settle, and that the share sale won’t prevent that. That’s not the same thing at all, or even close.

      • Bunji 8.2.1
        27 February 2013 at 4:38 pm

        Yes, that seems intriguing, I was thinking that – if no-one owns water or steam there would be no need for redress…

        (although the whole technical “own”, “rights” etc allows bending around language. But if anyone thinks no-one owns water I say: try not paying your water bill)

  9. Tanz 9
    27 February 2013 at 4:12 pm

    National will be pleased.

  10. marty mars 10
    27 February 2013 at 4:21 pm

    “[87]
    The fact that the Crown ultimately rejected the Waitangi Tribunal suggestion as inappropriate is not a basis from which it can be inferred that the consultation was empty or pre-determined. Indeed, this complaint is difficult to separate out from the substantive issue of Treaty compliance in the privatisation. If the Crown was justified in considering that the privatisation did not set up an impediment to recognition of Maori interests in water, it is difficult to infer that the consultation was inadequate simply from the fact that the idea of “shares plus” was rejected and there was no change in the Crown’s proposal as a result. For these reasons, we consider there is nothing in the consultation point that is not resolved with the substantive issue of whether the sale of shares was consistent with the principles of the Treaty.”

    pp 33 of 59

    A brainier person may be able to interpret that for me as I struggle to follow their logic.

    • Arfamo 10.1
      27 February 2013 at 4:27 pm

      I don’t think it can be interpreted on its own. It looks like it’s got to be seen in the context of foregoing paras that I haven’t read yet.

    • onsos 10.2
      27 February 2013 at 5:21 pm

      I am not a lawyer, but this seems to be saying:

      1. The Crown rejected the Waitangi Tribunal position.

      2. This does not mean that their consultation process was empty or pre-determined. That is, the consultation process could have been real, even if the Tribunal’s suggestion was rejected out of hand.

      3. If the Crown can recognise Iwi interests in water after privatisation, then the rejection of one option (“Shares plus”) does not stop that recognition.

      4. The critical thing is whether or not the Crown can recognise interests in water after privatisation.

      5. The consultation over this one issue would become irrelevant at that point.

      I would guess that the Supreme Court believes one or more of a bunch of things:

      a) “Shares plus” was not going to resolve the issue. Given that neither the Council nor the government showed much enthusiasm, this seems likely.

      b) Iwi groups don’t have rights over the water. Given precedent, this is unlikely.

      c) Water rights can be managed in collusion with the power companies, as they have been with Contact. I wouldn’t want to invest in a company on this basis.

      d) The government will carry the risk of liability for treaty settlements from the sale. Either it will reduce its stake below 51%, or it will compensate iwi.

      • Arfamo 10.2.1
        27 February 2013 at 5:29 pm

        Good analysis of that para and interesting suggestions as to what might be meant, but hopefully a proper read of the whole decision will render some speculations unnecessary.

        • marty mars 10.2.1.1
          27 February 2013 at 5:41 pm

          Indeed, however “For these reasons, we consider there is nothing in the consultation point that is not resolved with the substantive issue of whether the sale of shares was consistent with the principles of the Treaty.”

          Does that mean the consultation process was assessed in relation to the sharesplus deal and whether that deal was consistent with the Treaty, and because it was, therefore there “is nothing” in that consultation point that is “not resolved” ? I know context and all that and I really must read the whole thing…

          • Chris 10.2.1.1.1
            27 February 2013 at 6:18 pm

            I could be completely wrong as I am not a lawyer or anything but this is how I understand it:

            1 – the main points are whether the sale of the shares is consistent with the treaty or will impact any Maori claim under the treaty.

            2 – in other words the issues are whether before the sale of shares there was sufficient consultation with Maori and whether the sale of shares would interfere with any claim Maori may have to water/gas rights.

            3 – the paragraph you have quoted is referring to the fact that just because nothing came of the consultation does not automatically mean that the consultation was inadequate. They formed the opinion that there was adequate consultation.

            4 – I am pretty sure for the second issue they have decided that the sale of shares will not interfere with any water rights as there are avenues that the crown can pursue to reimburse (? may be the wrong word) Maori for these rights which will not be impacted by the sale for the shares.

            As I said I may be wrong and am happy to be corrected.

            On another point seems like the only avenue to delay is the referendum now – last I heard a couple of months ago they had reached the required number of signatures so has that been presented to government or anything?

  11. red rattler 11
    27 February 2013 at 4:22 pm

    Its just the ruling class wanting to tidy up an inefficiency in their system.
    Since the dams and bores were paid for by general taxation because no private individual would take the risk, and a few who did went bust, they now want to make sure that as a parasitic new gentry they can pocket the value added directly and not gamble on some of it going into WFF or some other hand out to the poor if a real Labour Party was in govt.
    Having got the 49% they won’t stop until they have it all. HEP and geothermal power will become commodities from which monopoly rent (transfer of value from other capitalists to monopoly owners) can be pumped. Typical for a rent-farming settler colony.
    And by the way general taxation is mainly a deduction from surplus value, that value produced by workers above what they need to live on. That, is they take it off us at source as a general subsidy to capital, but now want to turn it into private capital.

  12. Ad 12
    27 February 2013 at 4:29 pm

    This will put pressure on the Anti-Asset-Sales-Petition to front its signatures for the referendum pretty quickly from now. Either the threshold is reached or really the whole effort is politically worthless. The government proceeds, the Air New Zealand shares are put up, and the wholepublic discourse shifts from sovereignty (the public good is smashed) to that of price, of “what’s in it for me”. From the NZX to Brian Gaynor to the banks to the Superfunds to the fund managers like Infratil and Tower; this will dominate media discourse, not the question of opposition.

    Because the Supreme Court case was the last binding way to stop the government on this course.

    The failure of Solid Energy and the inability for Cabinet to alter the direction of Solid Energy despite COMU monitoring will also underline the question: does 100% asset ownership really matter to governance control and public accountability. So far, apparently not.

    If the Referedum does not occur within (say) 6 weeks, the Left broadly needs to find a new common cause. As good as Housing or better. Because this one will be over fast.

  13. Draco T Bastard 13
    27 February 2013 at 4:33 pm

    Time for every opposition party to say that they will renationalise without compensation.

    • Green Viper 13.1
      27 February 2013 at 4:52 pm

      +1 Draco

    • aerobubble 13.2
      27 February 2013 at 4:59 pm

      And its cheap to do so since there’s so much debt around, governments are the only legitimate printers.

    • Gosman 13.3
      27 February 2013 at 5:08 pm

      Yeah! I can’t wait for that to become official policy of the left. Somehow I don’t think it will. Mainly because the smart people in the various parties know it would destroy their election chances.

      • Colonial Viper 13.3.1
        27 February 2013 at 5:13 pm

        You have nothing to be worried about then

      • geoff 13.3.2
        27 February 2013 at 5:19 pm

        Do you know how stupid you are to defend a system that is completely falling apart on a global scale? Free-market-no-regulation ideology has been a complete and utter failure and yet you continue to champion it.

        • Colonial Viper 13.3.2.1
          27 February 2013 at 5:22 pm

          Gossie reckons he’ll be able to polish off his Dom Perignon and the galley will have time to get one last order of sirloin out to his table, before the bow of the Titanic finally disappears into the sea.

      • Draco T Bastard 13.3.3
        27 February 2013 at 6:26 pm

        Neither can I but I’m sure that the vote for the left will increase dramatically. People know that selling our assets will make all of us worse off.

    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 13.4
      27 February 2013 at 5:57 pm

      Isn’t that what they did to Maori land in the first place? How’d that end up?

      • Draco T Bastard 13.4.1
        27 February 2013 at 6:24 pm

        Nope. What they did there was pay less than they should have and then, during the land wars, made retrospective legislation to take the land. What I’m suggesting is full and upfront – if the assets are sold then the people who buy them know that they will lose them and their money at the next election.

        It’s called a disincentive and, I’d say, a fairly good one.

        • Addison 13.4.1.1
          27 February 2013 at 6:53 pm

          Yes , maybe a disincentive to ever vote left. Be careful what you wish for.

          • Draco T Bastard 13.4.1.1.1
            27 February 2013 at 10:21 pm

            No, an incentive to vote left as it keeps the wealth in the community rather than parceling it out to the rich and powerful and thus making everyone else poor.

    • Rodel 13.5
      27 February 2013 at 9:27 pm

      DTB
      We don’t really have an opposition..at least none of enough substance to say that..maybe Winstone
      There’s no one else to vote for.

    • Wayne 13.6
      28 February 2013 at 9:24 am

      Which they wont do – well maybe the Greens might.

  14. Karl Sinclair 14
    27 February 2013 at 4:51 pm

    To John Key (Curs) & the Supreme Court (aka lets spend lots of money on a court house for our own self importance….i.e. the MonKEY cage TM…….)

    Exert from Coriolanus

    You common cry of curs! whose breath I hate
    As reek o’ the rotten fens, whose loves I prize
    As the dead carcasses of unburied men
    That do corrupt my air, I banish you;
    And here remain with your uncertainty!
    Let every feeble rumour shake your hearts!
    Your enemies, with nodding of their plumes,
    Fan you into despair! Have the power still
    To banish your defenders; till at length
    Your ignorance, which finds not till it feels,
    Making not reservation of yourselves,
    Still your own foes, deliver you as most
    Abated captives to some nation
    That won you without blows! Despising,
    For you, the city, thus I turn my back:
    There is a world elsewhere.

  15. George D 15
    27 February 2013 at 4:51 pm

    I/S has a simple summary.


    the Maori Council were in fact successful in their argument that the treaty clause applied and that therefore the decision to sell was reviewable. But the Supreme Court found that the sale would not materially impair the government’s ability to provide redress for claims. On the financial side of things they are undoubtedly correct. But the most important form of redress is not financial, but regulatory: granting Maori more say in the allocation of their water, or the right to royalties from the use of their rivers. And on that, the court shows a lot more faith in the government than I do.

    …continues.
    http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2013/02/bugger.html

    • aerobubble 15.1
      27 February 2013 at 5:09 pm

      I think this means, that if a religious site, or community gathering place, was extinguished effectively by removing the water into and through the holy place, then its okay – as long as government (in its godliness can gift new holiness to replace). Its not Maori’s fault they worship water filled places.

      I believe the supreme court has made a horrendously poor decision.

      • Populuxe1 15.1.1
        28 February 2013 at 12:28 pm

        Can you show any evidence that deviation through a turbine in any way impacts on traditional Maori usage of water?

  17. tc 17
    27 February 2013 at 5:32 pm

    As inevitable as the overpaid CEO’s that sit atop these money spinning ‘businesses’

  18. Ad 18
    27 February 2013 at 5:41 pm

    Just thinking beyond the sale of Mighty River for a second, together with this significant drought the country is having, will this confluence help turn the tide for more dams – to be used both as power generation and as irrigation?

    Local and central governments might find their economies now so addicted to milk production and wine production (both for taxation and for employment density compared to lower density forms of production) that, like in Hawkes Bay and Canterbury, they actively encourage dams. And now the power companies will be let loose to expand to do this and exploit a major “climate change” in public opinion.

    Which, to take that one step further, would encourage central and regional public funds to buy into them.

  19. Penny Bright 19
    27 February 2013 at 5:42 pm

    WE CAN STILL STOP THE SALE OF MIGHTY RIVER POWER!

    SWITCH OFF MERCURY ENERGY!!!

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/supreme-court-throws-out-maori-councils-mighty-river-appeal-bc-#comment-608414

    What would be the effect of the Government signing the Transpacific Partnership Agreement, on Maori ‘rights and interests’ in water?

    Irrespective of what you believe regarding ‘who owns the water’ – won’t the TPPA lock in investors’ rights over all others?

    http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/th_gallery/the-tppa-and-capital-controls/

    BUT WE CAN STILL DO SOMETHING TO STOP THE SALE OF MIGHTY RIVER POWER!

    Switch Off Mercury Energy – 100% owned by Mighty River Power!

    “Let me make it quite clear. If the Government doesn’t get a good price – the Government isn’t going to sell”

    (Tony Ryall, Minister of SOE’s 17/6/2012 NBR

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/govt-wont-sell-assets-if-it-cant-get-good-price-ryall-ck-121435

    How can the Government get a ‘good price’ for Mighty River Power – if it’s losing thousands of customers and it’s profits are dropping?

    PRECEDENT: In 2008, Contact Energy (already privatized) doubled their directors fees and raised their prices 12%.In 6 months, more than 40,000 customers switched from Contact Energy and their profits were halved.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/droughts/news/article.cfm?c_id=180&objectid=10590906&pnum=0

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’
    A Spokesperson for the Switch Off Mercury Energy community group.

    http://www.facebook.com/SwitchOffMercuryEnergy/info

    • Populuxe1 19.1
      28 February 2013 at 12:26 pm

      Penny, when you finally get around to paying your rates, you might actually be entitled to a say.

  20. fenderviper 20
    27 February 2013 at 5:48 pm

    So the NZ dollar dropped overnite, be interesting to see where it goes up to sell time.

    NZ may get 2-3 rather than Bills 5-7.

    • tc 20.1
      27 February 2013 at 6:16 pm

      All the better for the foreign assett strippers who’ve been stashing Kiwi $$$’s waiting for this, they’ll sell off the excess and make an even bigger profit on the deal.

      Maybe some of the SFC vulture fund was left here for it.

  21. Karl Sinclair 21
    27 February 2013 at 5:57 pm

    Want to become a Supreme Supersized Judge….

    Pay
    Between $200,000 and $300,000 per year,

    What you will do
    Sell your country down the drain as you quaff down a bottle of Cristal Brut 1990 “Methuselah
    A deep disdain for anyone who is not a mum and dad investor and can’t afford to pay their power bill…..

    Judges may do some or all of the following:
    enforce jingoish rules during court cases

    Skills and knowledge
    Judges need to have:
    excellent knowledge of jingoishness
    excellent knowledge of how the court system operates in a jingoish fashion
    knowledge of other judges’ decisions (precedence – jingoish)

    Working conditions
    A $80.7 million Supreme Court platial palace
    Mercedes-Benz CL-Class

    Jingo = One who vociferously supports one’s country, especially one who supports a belligerent foreign policy; a chauvinistic patriot.

  22. Rogue Trooper 22
    27 February 2013 at 6:47 pm

    while we are on the subject of water: (Hint. It’s not oil)
    http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/25/the-coming-water-wars/
    “as in the Days of Noah”. Yep!

  23. xtasy 23
    27 February 2013 at 6:57 pm

    The courts can always only be a last resort to resolve matters, and in this case it has not worked out for the Maori Council and opponents to the partial asset sales.

    Pettions are useful, but even that will not stop the government hocking off more assets.

    It is up to the voters to get their priorities right and vote against this. They showed their indifference or ignorance last time, so NZ continues to be sold off bit by bit.

    There is one country in the “western world” that is champion in selling itself out, it is called New Zealand. Gutless, ignorant, cowardly or indifferent, those are the reasons for this to happen. When the shit hits the fan, most here rather run and head to Australia, rather than stand united and fight.

    It is a disappointing scenario and a sad state of affairs. Sorry, I am losing hope and am desperately considering other options, about where to live for the rest of my limited years.

  24. xtasy 24
    27 February 2013 at 7:29 pm

    So who will buy the bloody shares that will be offered for SOE partial sales?

    It will be the 10 to 30 per cent of the population (that part own them already), but that will want to get head-way above the riff raff rest of society, to enlarge their claim on what can be owned in any society, saying, we worked hard for the money we earned and saved, we “deserve”, we are “better” than the rest, because we are “key stakeholders” and will manage this country for our own benefit to the best of our knowledge.

    It is the continued agenda of division, separation, segregation, based largely on money, income, wealth, entitlement, claims for advantages and perks, and to rub it into the lower classes, to say, well, if you want a bloody say, work harder (on a shitty minimum wage), save, have less bred kids, bludge less and get a f**king life. That is the message. It is to divide NZ even more, and given the immigration policies, the de facto abolition of the bicultural Treaty of Waitangi arrangement, the envies created between migrants and locals, whites and non whites, the plan is working perfectly.

    This is hate politics, and it is division politics, highly manipulative, disturbing, fracturing and divisive. That is the “Key Plan” for Aotearoa NZ that is presented to the public. So does anybody care? I fear too many already fall for division and envy and hatred, so the game is LOST!

    • muzza 24.1
      28 February 2013 at 8:55 am

      Xtasy, its a shame to read the dispear in your posts, but I have to say that you’re correct, the game is lost.

      The game has been long in the making, the people of NZ, those who are still here, even the *smart ones*, don’t seem to grasp whats been going on.

      NZ is an experiment, the methods and results are so bloody obvious now, if only looking at how broken, corrupted and treasonous our parliament has become over the past 40 years or more. Its become so bad, we tolerate having criminal elements, who we are funding with our energy, taking this country away forever.
      Attacks on the poor, disabled, young, old, teachers, unions, *middle/lower class*, food safety, jobs, healthcare, our environment, it goes on, and on.

      The experiments *success*, can be measured by the apathy, lack of outward protesting, and by the numbers of people leaving NZ, there is no doubt the the higher the numbers, the better the result is seen, by those at the very top, and even the souless shells in office.

      Will people stand up, or has the experiment ripped the guts out of what we might know as Aoteroa/NZ!

  25. Lloyd 25
    27 February 2013 at 8:58 pm

    Just thinking. Does the rejection of Maori rights to water also apply to Hollywood’s right to demand money from people obtaining copies of their films or music?

  26. millsy 26
    27 February 2013 at 11:03 pm

    Look on the bright side.

    At least you wont have pay $50 to take the kids down to the local swimming hole.

  27. Tazireviper 27
    27 February 2013 at 11:05 pm

    Happening here as well

  28. Karl Sinclair 28
    28 February 2013 at 4:30 am

    Exerts From http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1201/S00050/nz-asset-sales-policy-began-on-wall-street.htm

    The Key government’s privatisation agenda is well advanced, with various private public partnerships (PPPs) already being developed……..

    Ultimately on offer is $5-20 trillion[14] in Crown mineral wealth, including gold, coal, lignite, phosphate, iron sand, oil, natural gas, and more, all under the fourth lowest royalty and taxation regime in the world[15] – a paltry 1% of the production value.[16]

    “Mixed ownership model” is destined to fail
    The Key government plans to sell 49% of four state owned energy companies – Mighty River Power, Meridian, Genesis, and Solid Energy, and a further 23% of Air New Zealand. It is claimed that $5–7 billion can be “freed up” to reduce debt.[17]

    What really betrays these asset sales as an ideologically-based policy is the maths…………

    Currently, the cost of borrowing is 4% for ten years, so the cost of $6 billion would be $240 million. The forecast dividends of the four SOE energy companies average $449 million over the next five years, 49% of which is $220 million. Add $20 million for selling 23% of Air New Zealand and the lost dividends average $240 million a year.[18]

    Now, add the sales related costs estimated at 3% or $180 million, plus the expected improved performance from substantial recent capital investment, and there is no way for New Zealand taxpayers to come out ahead.

    • Draco T Bastard 28.1
      28 February 2013 at 12:54 pm

      Of course it was started on Wall Street. Once the private sector is saturated, which it is, then it has to grow into the public sector for profits and that comes with a government guaranteed profits as well. It also comes with the ability to dictate to everybody who no longer owns the services that they depend upon.