Submission
Which option do you prefer?
Option Two – The alternative option – Keep Aurora Energy
Further comment
I am writing in opposition to the sale of Aurora Energy. I do not believe the short-term gain by selling Aurora is worth the long-term loss of an essential asset.
I find it curious and troubling that there was no mention of this proposed sale during the recent local elections. A major sale of this kind with long term implications for the city and the region should be brought before the public in the form of a referendum or public vote.
I do not believe the argument that Aurora has not been providing a dividend is a justifiable reason for its sale. We don’t require other public entities such as the library or road works to post a dividend. Aurora should be considered an essential monopoly service—or a fundamental infrastructure and strategic asset. One wonders who will want to purchase Aurora if it requires a huge capital investment. If Aurora is sold, it is likely profits will be prioritised over investment.
The DCC argues for the sale of Aurora claiming that the public’s interest in fairness will be upheld because electricity distribution is subject to regulation and government oversight through the Commerce Commission and electricity regulation. But we have only to look at what is being promulgated by the current coalition government to realise that regulations can be undone and environmental considerations ignored (e.g. Fast Track legislation).
The sale of Aurora is justified saying that revenue from the sale will be put into investment funds. However, investment funds are subject to the whims of the market and does not guarantee income. It would be better to reject short-term gain from this sale in favour of retaining Aurora as an essential services monopoly asset for now into the future.
Mary Furnari, Careys Bay
Supporting information
No associated documents with this submission.
Submitter
Submission id number: 1044208
Submitter name:
Mary Furnari
Organisation