Iwi to charge Mighty River Power

Lightspeed · 9th April 2013, 14:09

Iwi looks to charge Mighty River Power

plaz0r · 9th April 2013, 14:26

Quote:

"They store their water on our lake," says John Bishara, Tuwharetoa Maori Trust chairman.

ARE LAKE.

CCS · 9th April 2013, 14:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by plaz0r

ARE LAKE.

Huh?

Ab · 9th April 2013, 14:46

http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/...tml/page3.html

fixed_truth · 9th April 2013, 16:29

Damn, That's a Cold Ass Maori!

CCS · 9th April 2013, 16:50

No, that's an idiot who thinks he's getting back at the gummint but it's the people buying shares in MRP who will end up paying more. Good one.

fixed_truth · 9th April 2013, 17:05

I was meaning his pimpin hair do. I bet he's got on some flash brothel creepers too.

But if Tuwhare has a legal basis to charge then it would probably be a good business decision to do so. If potential investors don't like it, then don't buy shares.

Ab · 9th April 2013, 17:08

Tuwharetoa own the physical space where the water will be stored before Mighty River Power makes millions of dollars by using it to generate electricity for sale; yet Mighty River Power seems to expect this storage to be provided to it at no cost. Compensation seems perfectly reasonable.

pxpx · 9th April 2013, 17:11

I find myself asking, what would Australia do?

CCS · 9th April 2013, 17:14

"Tuwharetoa was happy for Mighty River to use the lake free of charge for the public good when it was a state-owned enterprise, but not now it's being sold by the Government."

Thing is, only 49% is being sold to the govt, to the tax payer. Continuing to allow MRP to use the lake free of charge would still benefit the public good. Some Tuwharetoa clever clogs probably think they're really sticking it to the govt, but they won't be able to block the sale - only potentially weaken the value of the company and return less money to the public purse. Good one.

Ab · 9th April 2013, 17:29

Ngati Tuwharetoa is under no obligation to give a shit about the public purse. The board of the Ngati Tuwharetoa Maori Trust has an obligation to look after its members. Where's the problem?

CCS · 9th April 2013, 17:57

The point is that they're not getting back at the people they think they're getting back at. And that's all this is about - getting back at someone.

Ab · 9th April 2013, 18:02

Seems to me it's about making money.

CCS · 9th April 2013, 18:05

If it were about making money, they would have done it a long time ago since it would seem they've been entitled to do that since 2007. This is about nothing more than spite and they've made it pretty obvious that the timing is not a coincidence.

I assume you're a member of the Tuwharetoa iwi?

Ab · 9th April 2013, 18:10

Not a member of any organisation involved in these discussions.

But I still don't see the problem. Tuwharetoa has been doing something for free for a state-owned enterprise and desires compensation if it is asked to do that thing by a commercial entity. So?

CCS · 9th April 2013, 18:13

So it's out of spite. I think I've already explained that.

Ab · 9th April 2013, 18:15

Spite implies malice - that Tuwharetoa is doing this to cause harm to Mighty River Power. Looks to me that Tuwharetoa is doing this to obtain financial benefit for itself. So it's being either greedy or fiscally prudent depending on which way you look at it.

CCS · 9th April 2013, 18:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCS

If it were about making money, they would have done it a long time ago since it would seem they've been entitled to do that since 2007. This is about nothing more than spite and they've made it pretty obvious that the timing is not a coincidence.

Ab · 9th April 2013, 18:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ab

Spite implies malice - that Tuwharetoa is doing this to cause harm to Mighty River Power. Looks to me that Tuwharetoa is doing this to obtain financial benefit for itself. So it's being either greedy or fiscally prudent depending on which way you look at it.

fixed_truth · 9th April 2013, 18:29

It's not a SOE anymore so they're making their decision based on an entirely different context.

Lightspeed · 9th April 2013, 18:44

It could be framed as "we care for our local community and are willing to support it" and with the asset no longer guaranteed to support only the local community (e.g. overseas investors might be getting a cut too, or some locals get major benefit while others are left out), their priorities have changed.

CCS · 9th April 2013, 18:46

It's majority owned by the government and, soon, individual taxpayers. You know, the same people whom the iwi said they wouldn't charge because it was for the public good. That public being... taxpayers.

Simon is really just being playing games by pretending that it's for any reason other than spite.

Lightspeed · 9th April 2013, 18:54

Well, the public is all taxpayers as well as non-taxpayers. Not just those who got the cash for shares.

Ab · 9th April 2013, 19:08

I just can't see why anyone in his right mind would give something for free to a company that was going to use it to make money.

A Corpse · 9th April 2013, 19:09

National said "We're gonna sell assets. Don't like it? then don't vote for us." People voted for them. Now those same people are wailing that the govt doesn't listen. The 40% of people opposed to asset sales who voted National anyway are the fucking morons that facepalm me the most.

CCS · 9th April 2013, 19:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Well, the public is all taxpayers as well as non-taxpayers. Not just those who got the cash for shares.

Yeah thanks for pointing out the obvious. When I mentioned the 51% owned by the govt, obviously that covers the public in general.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ab

I just can't see why anyone in his right mind would give something for free to a company that was going to use it to make money.

Well, the iwi has been doing that since 2007 and I think we've gone over the reason for that several times already.

Ab · 9th April 2013, 19:26

I once did some work for a charitable foundation for free. If that organisation contacted me tomorrow and said "hi we are now a for-profit company making money for investors rather than assisting the community, can you do some more stuff for free?" my answer would be "fuck you, pay me."

fixed_truth · 9th April 2013, 19:33

^Spiteful bastard

aR Que · 9th April 2013, 20:37

l o l. Good way to ensure 'NZ mum and dads' buy the majority of the shares

.

This wont hurt mighty river. Their cost of operating will go up, in the order of millions and, as ab would describe as a fiscally prudent move, they'll pass that onto us, the consumers.

CCS · 9th April 2013, 20:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ab

I once did some work for a charitable foundation for free. If that organisation contacted me tomorrow and said "hi we are now a for-profit company making money for investors rather than assisting the community, can you do some more stuff for free?" my answer would be "fuck you, pay me."

What a shitty analogy. SOE = for profit.

xor · 9th April 2013, 20:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ab

I once did some work for a charitable foundation for free. If that organisation contacted me tomorrow and said "hi we are now a for-profit company making money for investors rather than assisting the community, can you do some more stuff for free?" my answer would be "fuck you, pay me."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ydqjqZ_3oc

chubby · 9th April 2013, 22:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ab

Spite implies malice - that Tuwharetoa is doing this to cause harm to Mighty River Power. Looks to me that Tuwharetoa is doing this to obtain financial benefit for itself. So it's being either greedy or fiscally prudent depending on which way you look at it.

i do love you a bit.

chubby · 9th April 2013, 22:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Corpse

National said "We're gonna sell assets. Don't like it? then don't vote for us."

and that is fucking bullshit.
they didnt have their hand on their nuts there...
it was all like...'next term...see how it goes....'shuffle,slide....

Lightspeed · 9th April 2013, 23:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCS

What a shitty analogy. SOE = for profit.

Whose profit exactly?

CCS · 9th April 2013, 23:40

The shareholder.

chubby · 9th April 2013, 23:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCS

The shareholder.

and yt again...
channeling beavis and butthead.

'what do you like?
cool stuff..
and whats cool stuff?
stuff we like.'

Golden Teapot · 10th April 2013, 08:42

The iwi should be charging if they have an angle that lets them do so. It's not inevitable they do have an angle that will actually work though.

CCS · 10th April 2013, 16:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by chubby

and yt again...
channeling beavis and butthead.

'what do you like?
cool stuff..
and whats cool stuff?
stuff we like.'

Am I wrong? Does the shareholder not get a chunk of the profit?

chubby · 10th April 2013, 17:19

^^are you confessing to being unable to distinguish between corporate and social drivers in business?

Ab · 10th April 2013, 17:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by chubby

i do love you a bit.

I feel dirty.

9th April 2013, 16:50	#6
CCS Stunt Pants	No, that's an idiot who thinks he's getting back at the gummint but it's the people buying shares in MRP who will end up paying more. Good one. __________________ I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?

9th April 2013, 17:14	#10
CCS Stunt Pants	"Tuwharetoa was happy for Mighty River to use the lake free of charge for the public good when it was a state-owned enterprise, but not now it's being sold by the Government." Thing is, only 49% is being sold to the govt, to the tax payer. Continuing to allow MRP to use the lake free of charge would still benefit the public good. Some Tuwharetoa clever clogs probably think they're really sticking it to the govt, but they won't be able to block the sale - only potentially weaken the value of the company and return less money to the public purse. Good one. __________________ I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?

9th April 2013, 17:57	#12
CCS Stunt Pants	The point is that they're not getting back at the people they think they're getting back at. And that's all this is about - getting back at someone. __________________ I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?

9th April 2013, 18:05	#14
CCS Stunt Pants	If it were about making money, they would have done it a long time ago since it would seem they've been entitled to do that since 2007. This is about nothing more than spite and they've made it pretty obvious that the timing is not a coincidence. I assume you're a member of the Tuwharetoa iwi? __________________ I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?

9th April 2013, 18:13	#16
CCS Stunt Pants	So it's out of spite. I think I've already explained that. __________________ I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?

9th April 2013, 14:09	#1
Lightspeed	Iwi looks to charge Mighty River Power __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

9th April 2013, 14:46	#4
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/...tml/page3.html

9th April 2013, 16:29	#5
fixed_truth	Damn, That's a Cold Ass Maori! __________________ Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.

9th April 2013, 17:05	#7
fixed_truth	I was meaning his pimpin hair do. I bet he's got on some flash brothel creepers too. But if Tuwhare has a legal basis to charge then it would probably be a good business decision to do so. If potential investors don't like it, then don't buy shares. __________________ Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.

9th April 2013, 17:08	#8
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	Tuwharetoa own the physical space where the water will be stored before Mighty River Power makes millions of dollars by using it to generate electricity for sale; yet Mighty River Power seems to expect this storage to be provided to it at no cost. Compensation seems perfectly reasonable.

9th April 2013, 17:11	#9
pxpx	I find myself asking, what would Australia do?

9th April 2013, 17:29	#11
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	Ngati Tuwharetoa is under no obligation to give a shit about the public purse. The board of the Ngati Tuwharetoa Maori Trust has an obligation to look after its members. Where's the problem?

9th April 2013, 18:02	#13
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	Seems to me it's about making money.

9th April 2013, 18:10	#15
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	Not a member of any organisation involved in these discussions. But I still don't see the problem. Tuwharetoa has been doing something for free for a state-owned enterprise and desires compensation if it is asked to do that thing by a commercial entity. So?

9th April 2013, 18:15	#17
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	Spite implies malice - that Tuwharetoa is doing this to cause harm to Mighty River Power. Looks to me that Tuwharetoa is doing this to obtain financial benefit for itself. So it's being either greedy or fiscally prudent depending on which way you look at it.

9th April 2013, 18:29	#20
fixed_truth	It's not a SOE anymore so they're making their decision based on an entirely different context. __________________ Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. Last edited by fixed_truth : 9th April 2013 at 18:32.

9th April 2013, 18:44	#21
Lightspeed	It could be framed as "we care for our local community and are willing to support it" and with the asset no longer guaranteed to support only the local community (e.g. overseas investors might be getting a cut too, or some locals get major benefit while others are left out), their priorities have changed. __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

9th April 2013, 18:46	#22
CCS Stunt Pants	It's majority owned by the government and, soon, individual taxpayers. You know, the same people whom the iwi said they wouldn't charge because it was for the public good. That public being... taxpayers. Simon is really just being playing games by pretending that it's for any reason other than spite. __________________ I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?

9th April 2013, 18:54	#23
Lightspeed	Well, the public is all taxpayers as well as non-taxpayers. Not just those who got the cash for shares. __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

9th April 2013, 19:08	#24
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	I just can't see why anyone in his right mind would give something for free to a company that was going to use it to make money.

9th April 2013, 19:09	#25
A Corpse talkative lurker	National said "We're gonna sell assets. Don't like it? then don't vote for us." People voted for them. Now those same people are wailing that the govt doesn't listen. The 40% of people opposed to asset sales who voted National anyway are the fucking morons that facepalm me the most. __________________ Broke my addiction! Bye bye Eve, hello Minecraft. Wait... >_<

9th April 2013, 19:26	#27
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	I once did some work for a charitable foundation for free. If that organisation contacted me tomorrow and said "hi we are now a for-profit company making money for investors rather than assisting the community, can you do some more stuff for free?" my answer would be "fuck you, pay me."

9th April 2013, 19:33	#28
fixed_truth	^Spiteful bastard __________________ Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.

9th April 2013, 20:37	#29
aR Que	l o l. Good way to ensure 'NZ mum and dads' buy the majority of the shares . This wont hurt mighty river. Their cost of operating will go up, in the order of millions and, as ab would describe as a fiscally prudent move, they'll pass that onto us, the consumers.

9th April 2013, 23:40	#35
CCS Stunt Pants	The shareholder. __________________ I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?

10th April 2013, 08:42	#37
Golden Teapot Love, Actuary	The iwi should be charging if they have an angle that lets them do so. It's not inevitable they do have an angle that will actually work though.

10th April 2013, 17:19	#39
chubby	^^are you confessing to being unable to distinguish between corporate and social drivers in business? __________________ "Take four red capsules, in ten minutes-take two more. Help is on the way."