It's moments like these you need Minto'sWatch our rights erode
Christchurch could have protest-free zones at 'sensitive sites'
A councillor says "there's a time and place for protests", but a veteran protester thinks approved protest zones are contrary to NZ's sense of democracy.www.rnz.co.nz
I came to realise long ago that almost any change made by local or central government will affect someone's rights.... it depends on whether it affects you positively or negatively as to what you think off it.Watch our rights erode
Christchurch could have protest-free zones at 'sensitive sites'
A councillor says "there's a time and place for protests", but a veteran protester thinks approved protest zones are contrary to NZ's sense of democracy.
bsky.app
Oh, dear..... I'm guessing O'Neill hadn't heard of this fund that would provide domestic and commercial solar systems from government funding to councils. Better luck next time Simon.View attachment 16172
Simon O'Neill (@sjponeill.bsky.social)
This author has chosen to make their posts visible only to people who are signed in.
Well, first of all, it's not a fund. That to me implies grants, and it's a lending scheme for deferral of rates, with a bolt on to loan for solar. Hardly the great saviour in the need for us to remove our reliance on fossil fuelsOh, dear..... I'm guessing O'Neill hadn't heard of this fund that would provide domestic and commercial solar systems from government funding to councils. Better luck next time Simon.
Can rooftop solar shine in this term of Government? It's a narrow window, closing fast
The scheme could lend up to $5b within 15 years, backed by taxpayer guarantees.www.nzherald.co.nz
Did this happen through a phone call?
No. Still, the government, whether you have decided is the right or wrong way to do it (and I think it's the wrong way as I said the other day.... invest in large scale geothermal for the same money), it still doing something and not "obstructing" like Simon said. You do realise that, according to one of the backers of this government scheme, Mike Casey from Rewiring Aotearoa, nearly up to 80% of NZ households would need solar panels just to generate 40% of the countries power needs.
And neither does the Greens grant.... but no doubt you'd support that over the Ratepayers Assistance Scheme.
Really.... 2000 and 28% of NZ's power was made through fossil fuels. 2025 and 15% of NZ's power was made through fossil fuels. But you say nothing has been done by successive governments. Try again.
Wrong again.... the government just announced a $200 million capital injection into Genesis energy... the majority of which is going to fund the 136MWp Edgecumbe solar farm and the 271MWp Rangiriri solar farm. And by the way, forget the rhetoric you hear.... the government doesn't strip the generators of dividends... they reinvest profits into new generation and then set a dividend which all their shareholders pay.
No, most likely a security breach with a company we'd purchased something from and our credit card details were taken... that started the process.
I only put the last bit through chatgpt
| Claim | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Government invested ~$200m in Genesis | β Mostly true |
| Edgecumbe & Rangiriri solar projects | β Real projects |
| Government doesnβt take dividends |  Misleading |
| $4.5b renewables vs $10b dividends | β True-ish numbers but misleading comparison |
| 44 GW renewable pipeline | β Technically possible but unrealistic build outcome |
The key takeaway:
Says it all really. Billions get invested in renewables
The first backs up my statement that the government and the genretailers are investing in renewables.... a capital injection into a genretailer is still putting money into renewables... which you said they weren't because they were "tearing down any kind of moves towards getting away from them"I only put the last bit through chatgpt
Short answer: the statement mixes some true facts with misleading framing and a few claims that are hard to support. Iβll go through the key parts one by one.
1. βThe government just announced a $200m capital injection into Genesis Energyβ
Mostly correct, but the context matters.
So the government didnβt simply βgiveβ Genesis $200m; it participated in a capital raise as a shareholder. If it didnβt, its stake would have been diluted.
- In 2026, the NZ government agreed to buy about $198 million of new shares in Genesis Energy as part of a $400m equity raise.
- The reason: to maintain its 51% ownership when the company issued new shares.
The funding is expected to help accelerate investment in renewables and firming capacity (like batteries).
2. βMost of the money is going to Edgecumbe and Rangiriri solar farmsβ
Partly true but overstated.
Two real projects exist:
However:
- Edgecumbe Solar Farm β 136 MWp, about $236 m project cost.
- Rangiriri Solar Farm β 271 MWp, about $487 m project cost.
So saying the $200m is βmostly going to those farmsβ is simplified or speculative.
- The capital raise funds multiple investments (solar, batteries, debt reduction, etc.), not just those two projects.
- The projects are primarily funded from Genesisβs balance sheet and financing, not directly from a specific government cheque.
3. βThe government doesnβt strip dividends; they reinvest profits and then pay dividendsβ
This is misleading.
New Zealandβs major gentailersβ
operate like normal listed companies:
- Genesis Energy
- Meridian Energy
- Mercury NZ
- Contact Energy
So:
- The company decides capital spending and investment plans.
- The board sets a dividend policy.
- Shareholders receive dividends, including the government.
The reality is both happen simultaneously:
- The government does receive large dividend payments from these companies.
- But it does not directly decide operational spendingβthatβs done by company boards.
- billions paid in dividends
- billions invested in generation.
4. β$4.5 b invested in renewables from 2012β2023 vs $10 b dividendsβ
This type of comparison circulates often in NZ energy debates, and the broad numbers are plausible, but the argument is misleading without context.
Why:
So comparing dividends vs renewable capex isnβt a meaningful measure of whether companies are investing enough.
- Dividends go to all shareholders, not just the government.
- For partially privatised companies, the government owns 51%, not 100%.
- Investment isnβt limited to renewables.
Companies also spend money on:
- hydro upgrades
- transmission connections
- geothermal drilling
- gas/thermal backup
- retail operations.
- Power companies borrow heavily to build plants.
Investment isnβt funded only from retained profits.
5. β280 renewable projects producing 44.3 GW plannedβ
This is likely referring to projects in the fast-track consent pipeline, but the number is very misleading.
For context:
What that number usually means:
- New Zealandβs entire electricity system peak demand is about 7β8 GW.
- So 44 GW of projects would be several times the countryβs total demand.
So it reflects developer interest, not realistic build-out.
- it includes all proposed projects, not ones that will definitely be built
- many are early-stage proposals competing for the same grid capacity
- historically most never proceed.
Bottom line
The statement contains real facts but used rhetorically.
Claim Accuracy Government invested ~$200m in Genesis β Mostly true Edgecumbe & Rangiriri solar projects β Real projects Government doesnβt take dividends $4.5b renewables vs $10b dividends β True-ish numbers but misleading comparison 44 GW renewable pipeline β Technically possible but unrealistic build outcome
NZ gentailers do invest billions in renewables, but they also pay large dividends to shareholders, including the government. The system is designed to do both at the same time.
Canβt see a problem myself.When companies give loans to shareholders, of course it should be taxed in just the same way dividends or income is taxed. Massive loophole which needs to be closed!!!, NZ First not liking it because it may effect too many of their donors and ACT not liking it because they think itβs βdouble taxationβ.
When a company βloansβ money to a shareholder, itβs not taxed as they treat that loan as an expense reducing their tax bill. When/if itβs repaid, the company only pay tax on the interest (if any) they receiveβ¦. yet they put the whole loaned amount as a deduction.
For example, a business makes a $1,000,000 net profit for the year. The sole director who is also the sole shareholder then decides the business should βloanβ $500,000 at 1% to himself. That means the companies taxable income has just decreased to $500,000.
He uses the $500,000 as a 50% deposit for a $1 million investment property. The rent covers the mortgage, rates and other expenses. In 15 years, the investment property has doubled in value and he sells it, repaying the $250,000 on the mortgage to the bank and the $500,000 (plus $80,000 compounded interest) to the company. He walks away with just under $1.2 mil.
Even though the company used the whole $500,000 as a tax deduction, the repayment of the $500,000 isnβt counted as income and it only has to pay tax on the $80,000 compounded interest.
In other words, there is no double taxationβ¦. just the shareholder getting untaxed income and the business writing off an expense which isnβt taxed when repaid.
Proposal to tax company loans to shareholders appears dead in the water
NZ First and Act oppose Inland Revenue proposal.
I suspect a lot of Waikato farmers who have beach houses have used company loans like this to purchase them. Pay yourself $25,000 in wages and take out a "loan" for the rest of the money year's "income". No due diligence or credit check necessary when you're lending to yourself.Canβt see a problem myself.
Poor business owner will probably die 10 years younger from the extra stress supporting bludgers playing PlayStation all day
www.thepress.co.nz
How screwed are we if this happens?
