By: Mike Hosking | Monday, July 16, 2012 8:51 AM

Do you think John Key was bothered by the protests over the weekend on the asset sales? I wouldn’t have thought so. What did they say in Auckland? Was it 3000? Hardly a mass display. And I think I heard 500 for Christchurch. A lot of it was the usual suspects. I saw signs for state housing, I saw Sue Bradford.

No, that's not his problem but the Waitangi Tribunal might be. Not the tribunal itself but the ensuing court action because you can bet anything you like that no matter what the tribunal says, someone isn’t going to be happy. Once again the old gravy train will be boarded for a good old extended visit to a High Court, then maybe onto the Court of Appeal. The problem with that is it creates doubt. Doubt in the minds of the investors.

People who sink money into things like the companies the Government is selling like to know what’s what and court action doesn’t provide that. The more doubt you have, the less the investor is willing to pay which is critical to the Government given they’ve said they’ll get between $5 billion and $7 billion. If the number starts to fall below that, then that will give the anti-asset sales brigade new wind and an ongoing battle the Government doesn't need.

Regarding the Prime Minister’s comments on the tribunal and its decisions being non binding therefore giving his government the ability to ignore them, rather than the opprobrium that's been heaped upon him by everyone from Tariana to Titewhai, he needs to be praised for being upfront. He could (as would have many a politician) have pretended the tribunal was vital and would be listened to intently only to in reality do whatever he wanted anyway.

But no, he told it like it is. The same way he went to the country at the start of last year and told us about the float of the assets and campaigned on them and won the election on them, thus giving his government what is commonly referred to in a democracy as a mandate. That doesn't mean you can’t protest or argue against policy you don’t like, but what it does mean is the majority wins and the party with the numbers in the house gets to make the law.

I think common sense would dictate that no one owns water and those who argue they do are floating an enormous kite and wasting a lot of time. That is not a good enough reason to damage the prospects of a perfectly legitimate, democratically backed government policy.