Power trust assets should benefit all consumers

I was interested to read of Mr Scott’s mission to distribute shares of the Hawke’s Bay Power Consumers’ Trust.

The trust’s assets were developed and contributed to by generations of HB Power Consumers, for the benefit of both themselves and those coming after. Profits therefore should benefit all consumers for the foreseeable future rather than be a windfall for some people at one particular time. The impact of Mr Scott’s proposal has already been seen when some power companies distributed shares at the time of the power reforms. Only consumers on a certain date benefited, often selling or taking their shares out of the district, with no one thereafter receiving anything.

There is constant change among consumers as people move in and out of the district or become adults and start living independently. The current trust caters for that.

Let’s recognise the wisdom of those who set up the trust in the fairest way they could, so that all consumers could benefit, then, now and into the future.

Which means not supporting Mr Scott’s suggestions.

HG Sanders Havelock North

Other considerations

The report ‘$10,000 lure in bid to reform Unison’ (Hawke’s Bay Today Sept 20) is of concern.

It is a good explanation but from only one point of view — that of accounting. It makes no mention of a more fundamental consideration. Household energy is an essential of modern living, like water and fresh air. At present we own this service, through the agency of the trust Unison Networks. Why would anyone sell something they own and on which they and their family depend for as far ahead as we care to consider?

It is good sense that the ownership of the trust should be reviewed every five years — but the thought of listing on the NZ Stock Exchange and thus providing the mechanism for sale to (probably) overseas investors should be not even a fleeting thought. Ownership gives control.

A Williams

Napier

Victims’ rights

Jennifer Foster (22/9/21) puts up a plausible case for protecting the rights of the supermarket attacker. But what about protecting the rights of his innocent victims? Whose rights deserve greater protection? The attacker who goes to the supermarket with the intention of doing harm, or his victims who go there to do their shopping? These were actual victims. He was known to be a likely threat, so the rights of his potential victims also needed to be protected.

Tim Herrick Havelock North

MIQ rethink needed

Re: MIQ needs major rethink: This article looks at purpose-built MIQ, isolated somewhere in Auckland and/or Wellington and Christchurch.

Reality, is that NZ would not be able to construct a building containing 1500 rooms if split three ways, or 4000 rooms if one location.

As a baseline I use the new Dunedin hospital which will have under 600 overnight beds, costed at $1.4 billion plus an extra $135 million in costs already, stage one completion date 2025, stage 2 completion date 2028. These figures are exclusive of equipment and fit out. So one can assume that to provide 4200 rooms larger than hospital rooms would cost in excess of $8 billion. Any MIQ building would need to get past “not in my backyard attitude” and the RMA. Between pandemics what would the purpose build buildings be used for?

If we are spending that sort of money, we should just build more hospitals, and unless they are planned and approved this year they will not be ready before 2033. I have not covered issues of staffing, moving people about, because these issues aren’t being considered by those proposing purpose build facilities. Graham Booth

Taradale