State Owned Enterprises

Radio Live have just tweeted:

BREAKING: The High Court rules in favour of the Crown over water rights/asset sales case taken by the Maori Council

— RadioLIVE Newsroom (@LIVENewsDesk) December 11, 2012

Good stuff.

Tony Ryall and Bill English have said in their Press Release:

Finance Minister Bill English and State Owned Enterprises Minister Tony Ryall today welcomed the High Court decision in favour of the Crown following last month’s High Court action regarding the sale of shares in Mighty River Power.

“The High Court decision confirms the Government can proceed to sell up to 49 per cent of shares in four state owned energy companies, in accordance with the legislation passed by Parliament earlier this year,” Mr English says.

“The Government is firmly of the view that the partial sale of shares does not in any way affect the Crown’s ability to recognise rights and interests in water, or to provide redress for genuine Treaty claims.”

UPDATE:

The Maori Council says it is now working on an appeal.

— Jessica Mutch TVNZ (@MutchJessica) December 11, 2012

Deep pockets. For the lawyer troughers.

Roarprawn has posted some documents last night. They are very illuminating yet deeply disturbing at the same time.

On page three of the Ombudsman’s letter of 28 November (see doc on roarprawn called brash 2):

In the face of … uncertainty, I consider it prudent to err on the side of caution as I am conscious of the fact that each serious or high-profile criminal investigation that remains unsolved can have a discernable effect on public confidence in the maintenance of law and order.

I have carefully weighed up all the relevant factors in this case (such as the length of time since the file was “active” and the stage the investigation had reached) and I am persuaded that the dissemination of the information at issue would be likely to prejudice the maintenance of the law by compromising the criminal investigation.  I am limited in the extent to which I can elaborate further on my reasoning for reaching this view.

Beverley A Wakem

Chief Ombudsman

28 November 2008

Hooton replies to the Chief Obbudsman (see doc called brash 1 on roarprawn) pointing out that there is no doubt at all the Chief Ombudsman is wrong in law. 

Therefore the questions are:

Why was the Chief Ombudsman willing to reach even a provisional position which is so obviously wrong in law, when the Office of the Ombudsman usually gets the law right?

Why is the Office of the Ombudsmen keeping secrets about the Police keeping secrets about the secret email stealer?