Submission
Which option do you prefer?
Option Two – The alternative option – Keep Aurora Energy
Further comment
History tells us that selling state-owned assets (or Council, in this case) does not ensure a premium sale price at the time and ultimately benefits a small group of investors who make enormous profits over time at the expense of tax or ratepayers. Also, a regulated asset like this can be deregulated, like many other assets in this country have, again at the expense of local tax and ratepayers. Much as a 17% rate rise might feel painful in the moment, the proposed rise results from many, many years of 'short term-ism', where long term benefit of investing appropriately in improvements to our city's infrastructure and services have been foregone in favour of the short term 'benefit' of appeasing ratepayers and ensuring those in power stay in power. Additionally, just look at what's happening in our media sector currently: a critical public service is collapsing because aspects of it were sold off to foreign investors and they now don't want to continue investing because its not making them money. Who loses out? NZ residents. Now is the time to show real leadership and ensure the future residents of this city are not disadvantaged by more short term, reactionary thinking. As we face a climate crisis -- with all the upheaval and changes that will cause in the electricity market and beyond -- maintaining a Council owned electricity company that is required by law to provide the best possible outcome for our residents seems like a great idea to me.
Supporting information
No associated documents with this submission.
Submitter
Submission id number: 1042267
Submitter name:
Ruth Harvey
Organisation