Vote City Vision in Entrust elections

32 comments on “Vote City Vision in Entrust elections ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Stunned Mullet 1

   12 October 2018 at 9:45 am

   On balance I agree with most of their positions, will be interesting to see what C&R comes out with if anything.
2. TheSouthRemebers 2

   12 October 2018 at 9:47 am

   As a South Aucklander, CityVision doesn’t really relate to me all too well since it has always been an Isthmus focused organisation. More could be done to encourage South Auckland voters to turn out for left leaning candidates but City Vision has only put up Robert Reid as their South Auckland candidate, all the other CV candidates are unknown to people here, Robert’s long service in the Union is long remembered for many workers here so it’s an easy tick. One of my votes goes to ‘independent’ (Labour Party Member and Former MP) Ashraf Choudhary. As both an elected member for the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board and as a Counties Manukau DHB member would have a much higher profile across wider Manukau than the other four CV candidates standing. My other 3 votes would likely go CV candidates but they are just names on paper rather than any relevance to me as a voter.
   • mickysavage 2.1

     12 October 2018 at 9:52 am

     Thanks I wish that CT and Ashraf could have sorted this out as splitting the vote does not help.

     I agree about Robert Reid. He would be great on the trust board.
     • The Fairy Godmother 2.1.1

       12 October 2018 at 3:53 pm

       Agree Mickey. City Vision is quite Isthmus focused and I don’t think they got the message out amongst left networks that they were standing a ticket. To be fair Ashraf didn’t tell anyone he was standing until it was publicly announced either.
       • Dukeofurl 2.1.1.1

         12 October 2018 at 5:32 pm

         City Vision has had a ticket for Entrust since for ever, along with other entities such as DHB.
         • The Fairy Godmother 2.1.1.1.1

           12 October 2018 at 6:11 pm

           Yes but only for the Isthmus area not for the other parts of Auckland.
3. Carolyn_Nth 3

   12 October 2018 at 11:04 am

   Thanks for drawing attention to this. I received my voting papers yesterday and was just going to ignore it, as I never know anything about the candidates.
   just had a look. Gee – not exactly representative of Auckland demographics.

   13 candidates: 2 women (1 each for C&R and City vision).

   No candidates identifiable as Maori, Pacific or south east Asian.

   The only indication that it is not just a bunch of older white folks is candidate Ashraf Choudhary.
4. Dukeofurl 4

   12 October 2018 at 12:30 pm

   Regarding the outcomes if the ‘assets are sold’

   “First, that parts of Vector’s assets are bundled up and the sale proceeds going to Auckland Council. (most likely)

   The precedent for the other Auckland lines company Waitemata, that was sold at the formation stage.
   The proceeds went the residents and business who were being supplied at the time.

   From memory they each got circa $3000 worth . EACH. back when that was real money ( early 1990s)

   There is no way that North Shore and West Auckland residents will be double dipping on this one , nor the Auckland Council ‘getting’ the assets/money .

   This isnt small change for Entrust dividends as its around $ 510 per qualifying household ( pre tax)
5. Ad 5

   12 October 2018 at 2:35 pm

   I would prefer to see a strong statement that they will accelerate the return of the VectorTrust shareholding to Auckland Council as soon as possible, so that there is clear democratic accountability of Vector to citizens.

   It’s great to promise not to make the situation worse.

   I want to see them act on bold decisions to increase democratic accountability now not in several decades as per the existing statute.
   • Dukeofurl 5.1

     12 October 2018 at 5:59 pm

     Auckland Council would sell it as quick as winks to get their hands on $2 bill
     • Ad 5.1.1

       12 October 2018 at 6:07 pm

       They haven’t so far and have been going for 10 years.
       Trust the people.
       • Dukeofurl 5.1.1.1

         12 October 2018 at 7:05 pm

         Why should half of Auckland get a free ride, they sold their shares in their lines companys. No double dipping.
         • Carolyn_Nth 5.1.1.1.1

           13 October 2018 at 5:42 pm

           There’s already double dipping happening. You seem to assume all the same people are living in the same parts of Auckland as in the 1990s.

           I know one or two people who were living out west in the 90s, and act like they’ve won the lottery when they moved into central Auckland and could get the Entrust pay out.

           Auckland has grown in recent decades – plenty of recent incomers all over that were not here in the 90s.

           Thanks, though, for the history lesson on it. I was overseas in the 90s, and did not understand why there was the Entrust system in central Auckland, and not in other parts of the city.

           I would like to see nationalisation of the powercos and the likes of Vector – take the profit motive out of it.
6. Carolyn_Nth 6

   12 October 2018 at 2:49 pm

   Got a letter today promoting the C&R team for Entrust – binned it. I’ll vote for the candidates who aim to work for a big majority of Aucklanders.

   I like that CV are addressing more diversity of Vector directors, counter-acting energy poverty, and environmental sustainability, as well as opposing missive privatisation and selling off of Aucklanders’ assets.
7. Dukeofurl 7

   12 October 2018 at 5:26 pm

   They managed to stall that Court case that challenged ex national MP Paul Hutchison eligibility to stand for the Trust last time

   ‘Papers have been filed with the Auckland High Court that allege Paul Hutchison, a Entrust trustee and a former National MP for the Hunua electorate, did not live within the district covered by Entrust, Newsroom has reported.

   Before Entrust’s October 2015 election a statement of claim said Hutchison said he lived on Onslow Ave in Epsom, which was his brother’s house.

   Last week, Hutchison signed a declaration confirming the details and also added he maintained a residence in Leamy Way, Drury, which had been his family home.

   Shades of Key , who falsely claimed he lived in the electorate when he enrolled , but has signed company documents saying he lived in Remuera.

   Brothers house , who does he think we are
   https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12061462

   More lies in the other C&R candidate Alastair Bell, saying hes a Consumer Advocate, yeah right .
8. Ad 8

   12 October 2018 at 5:32 pm

   CityVision’s manifesto is fine as it goes, but I would strongly prefer to see a clear statement saying that they will return Vector control to Auckland Council well before the legislated timeframe, in order that this vital electricity network can be brought under democratic control.

   It is simply bringing forward what is already provided for, and Vector Chair Michael Stiassny is a corporate bully who has already moved hard against this Trust having any reasonable influence over the Vector Board.

   These guys enabled hundreds of thousands of consumers to go cold in April this year due to their inability to secure the network, then made the most pathetic excuses to Auckland Council when called out about it.

   Time to bring them into full and unrelenting scrutiny within public ownership.
   • Carolyn_Nth 8.1

     12 October 2018 at 5:43 pm

     Full public ownership and democratic systems of responsibility sound good to me.
   • Dukeofurl 8.2

     12 October 2018 at 5:57 pm

     Why would they say that.
     “return Vector control to Auckland Council ”
     Entrust only covers half of Auckland , the other half blew away their lines company shares for easy cash.
     They arent going to get another share.

     We have a democratic election now for Entrust- do you have a different meaning for democratic.
     • Ad 8.2.1

       12 October 2018 at 6:06 pm

       Auckland Council covers all of Auckland, who will under legislation be the beneficiaries of the Trust.

       The election is to vote for largely powerless Trust members. Rather than for actual politicians. It is as close to a sham as you get.
       • Dukeofurl 8.2.1.1

         12 October 2018 at 7:04 pm

         The beneficiaries arent all of Auckland , they are only the former Auckland City , Manukau City and parts of Papakura City

         Thats not all of Auckland , as it excludes the old Waitakere, North Shore, Rodney And Franklin Councils.
         A bit under half are not beneficiary’s !
         Super City changed what was separate councils.

         Thos previous councils had their own lines companys, who gave shares to beneficiaries who took the cash in the early 90s.
         • Ad 8.2.1.1.1

           12 October 2018 at 9:03 pm

           Stiassny had been on the Board since 2002 – 16 years – so it was no revolution. He left happily to go straight to the NZTA Chair, which is far more powerful. He left a great blame-trail, sure, but then he’s good at that and fuck all else.
           The Trust’s power has been reduced to that of an electoral college, which is also fuck all.

           Vector in the meantime have gone on doing precisely what they want for two decades, underlining time and again how much they sideline the Trust.
           • Dukeofurl 8.2.1.1.1.1

             13 October 2018 at 8:20 am

             left happily ????
             Its clear you have no idea on that one…oh dear

             Plus you are clueless on how a Trust who only has the shares works, the Board of Vector makes the decisions. The Trust can really only vote of who the directors are.

             Same set up for Auckland Council Investments – who hold all the shares , not the elected Councils.

             Sheeesh ….
             • mickysavage …

               13 October 2018 at 9:14 am

               Appointers have all the power. You mean that being to say who the directors are is inefectual?
               • Dukeofurl …

                 13 October 2018 at 10:38 am

                 I dont know how they work in practice , except its a bit more at arms length compared to the company board. They did seem to fire the chairman as they wanted him to quit immediately rather than when his term expired which was the ‘plan’

                 Auckland Council Investments- company board wouldnt be more ‘democratic’ as Ed claims than Entrust is now.
                 Thats why I will vote City Vision or similar for the election. I want to keep the control in public hands and out of the control of people like Alistair Bell and his cronies in the national party.
       • Dukeofurl 8.2.1.2

         12 October 2018 at 7:29 pm

         Does elected Auckland Councillors have any say over Ports of Auckland, Watercare et al.
         Recently Entrust trustees fired the Chair of Vector,,… yeah toothless
         • Ad 8.2.1.2.1

           12 October 2018 at 8:58 pm

           Yes they have plenty of power. And they exercise it.
           I’m not going to explain how since it’s so easy for you to find out how yourself.

           As to the beneficiaries, it’s sad that you’ve got a bee in your uninformed bonnet about who they are. So let the Trust itself enlighten you.

           “Entrust is a private trust established in 1993. It acts in the interests of its beneficiaries, over 331,000 households and businesses in Auckland, Manukau, northern Papakura and eastern Franklin.”

           https://www.entrustnz.co.nz/about-us/who-we-are/

           AECT holds these assets in trust for the energy consumers living within the former AEPB boundaries (i.e. in Auckland, Manukau and Papakura) until 2073, at which point they will pass to the local government body or bodies functioning within the boundaries of the former AEPB. If no such body or bodies exist, the assets will pass to the Crown.

           The body who will receive the shares is the Auckland Council, as per above. So on both the service levels, and on its AECT Trust Deed, the beneficiaries are clear.
           • Dukeofurl 8.2.1.2.1.1

             13 October 2018 at 8:16 am

             Thats roughly half of Auckland – what Ive been saying , why should the ‘other half’ get a share. True the legislation does say that about 2073 …. 50 or more years away, but that was just a burp from Max Bradford and will be changed before that date comes up.

             As for democratic control by Councillors , you clearly dont know the Councils shares in Ports of Auckland, Auckland International Airport are not under elected councillors direct control but by the appointed board members of Auckland Council Investments, who act in a similar way to the Trustees of Entrust do.
             • Ad …

               13 October 2018 at 10:33 am

               I will tell you why the “other half of Auckland” should get a share.

               Then I’ll get to governance.

               It probably requires a post by itself on electricity regulation, but it needs saying anyway.

               Right. Since the Max Bradford reforms of the electricity market in both generators and in wholesalers, we have seen a deliberate stripping-away of democratic accountability of any kind. The lines companies are not responsible to anyone other than their shareholders. This includes the remaining publicly-owned ones such as Aurora. Aurora – 100% owned by Dunedin City Holdings – had its maintenance regime stripped away over years and years to the point where far too many of their poles were falling over or getting close to it.

               But unlike Vector, Aurora was able to be brought before an elected Council and get smashed around in public and in the media until they saw the light. Just as importantly, they were able to be smashed around behind closed doors. They were audited several times. Ministers started making noises against the Mayor. Bulkloads of staff who were incompetent or who were managerial toadies got fired.

               And sure it will take a while for the entire asset management plan of the network to be renewed properly, but it will not go back to the way it was in the foreseeable future.

               So there was no regulator. There still isn’t. But there was democratic accountability.

               Now let’s take Vector. A storm came through in April this year and tens of thousands of people lost power, and several hundred lost it for over a week. It was cold and wet.

               Vector could have undergrounded their lines over several decades to ensure that electricity supply to the little old ladies of the west were not at threat.

               There was a huge media noise about all of this. Plenty of MPs and Councillors got involved. But Vector kept on doing what it did, sending out it’s usual excuses, inept call centres, its subcontracted lines companies getting through the faults in the time they could. But at the end, no-one held them to account for it.

               In previous years Entrust and its antecedent had been able to negotiate a list of streets that would gradually be under grounded. Now, not even that little effort continues.

               Then finally when the deigned to show up to Auckland Council out of the goodness of their heart, management explained that they couldn’t possibly underground all those lines because it just might put up the total cost of supplying power. No Councillor had the facts to provide an alternative, no one was held to account. Nothing changed.

               Even more egregiously, Vector last month sent out a $50 cheque to every single one of its customers for no reason whatsoever. Simply threw tens of millions out the window. Anyone with any sense knew it was a coded apology, but still banked the money. Clearly Vector had plenty of cash to underground their lines and make them secure after all.

               And here’s where we get to the difference in governance.

               If Vector had been a Council Controlled Organisation like Auckland Transport or Watercare, staff inside Auckland Council would be trained to act as their guardians and regulators. There are shareholder guides and much of the Finance team schooled up on keeping these entities in check. Of course there is a difference in agency that the Council has over Watercare as compared to the Ports of Auckland.

               But – as in the Dunedin example – even another layer won’t protect them when it goes tits up.

               i don’t always have a fixed view on whether entities once formed should be brought fully back in-house again and simply be Departments.

               But in Vector’s case, if it were brought back fully under Auckland Council and held to account, management would no longer be able to run the show. The reason the 25% of Vector was sold off in the first place was management pushed to buy the gas network, and National’s mates saw it as an easy way to crack the left and henceforth ensure democratic accountability never directly occurring again. And so it has proved. Very similar to what we have seen with the NZGovernment electricity generators selling 49%.

               All Aucklanders should benefit from the democratic protection of Auckland Council because there is no regulator to protect them as consumers and probably never will be, and secondly because it unites the citizen and the consumer back to being the same person again. Because that is what they should be, and it is not what they are. Until the citizen and the consumer of electricity are united again, vector will simply continue to do what they want. They are far and away more powerful than petrol companies in our lives.

               The transfer of those shares to a democratic institution – faulty as it is – is far better than leaving it in the hands of management. There is an idea that Entrust and other similar trusts have some say in the actual decisions that get made.

               Let me disabuse you of this right away. There is always an effort to accord the owners, shareholders, or other investors, a seeming role in Vector. It is a fraud. Capitalism has one given way to management cum bureaucracy, where an appearance of relevance for owners is contrived. Fraud.

               Of course there are some agreed ceremonial aspects. One is a board of directors selected by management, fully subordinate to management but viewed by the consumer and the shareholder as a voice of shareholders and of the people. With rare exceptions they are remarkably acquiescent in Vector’s case. Given a fee and some food and good regular Eden Park tickets, these directors are routinely informed by management on what has been decided or already known. Approval is assumed, including for management compensation – compensation set by management. And in the case of Vector it is munificent.

               You will of course be aware of the scrutiny that this Labour government and Auckland Labour Council are doing to limit their own entities. Because they can. And because they are Labour led and dominated.

               There are of course times even in Vector’s history when there is a valve opened for some adverse comment. In Vector’s case the succession plan for Stiassny was already well underway and he’s already had the chute well greased by Phil Twyford to NZTA. But, for safety valves, they all get invited each year to the annual meeting, which resembles something as useful to management as a religious rite. There is ceremonial expression, and with rare exceptions, no negative response. infidels who urge action are set aside and the management position routinely approved.

               The Trust should it ever get off its hind legs could put up something like more environmental measures, have their proposal printed with some supporting argument. Then when the eating is done management take them and shred them.

               Sure, that’s not just particular to Vector. And the one really big exception to it is the highly intelligent, socially eccentric and financially successful Berkshire Hathaway. Proposals by its stockholders are frequently accepted – often by working it through very thoroughly with management beforehand.

               But in Vector’s case no one should be in doubt. Unless it is fully retired to the whole of the people of Auckland, the citizen and the consumer will remain divided and powerless. And the shareholders whether in a trust or not will remain fully subordinate to Vector management. Though the impression of owner authority is offered, it does not in fact exist. It is simply an accepted fraud.

               So there you go. Probably should have been a post by itself.
               • Dukeofurl …

                 13 October 2018 at 10:43 am

                 There is no extra ‘governance’ from having the Auckland Council involved.

                 Thats the big myth of your proposal.
                 as I pointed out with Ports of Auckland, which has its own board, and the shares are under the control of Auckland Council Investments with its own board and then to the Auckland Council itself.
                 QED . Not more democratic.

                 The changes you talk about seem on the face of it worthy things, but having the income spread over all of Auckland instead of the roughly half now who are beneficiaries isnt democratic.

                 Having a rant about capitalism may suit your mindset but isnt going to change the situation where its a listed public company like Vector , 75% owned by Entrust or an unlisted company like POAL, 100% owned by Auckland Council Investments Ltd.
                 The shares can be sold under either circumstance depending on the political control.
                 Im voting for City Vision or aligned to makes sure the beneficiary ownership remains.

                 Im sure you have forgotten that 15 years ago Auckland City Council sold its shares in Auckland Airport, while Manukau Council did not – the reason why the successor Auckland Council still has a small holding.
                 Clear evidence that Council ownership doesnt guarantee public ownership, as political winds can change
                 • Ad …

                   13 October 2018 at 10:53 am

                   It’s not the shares you need to focus on in the future transfer – it’s the whole organization and business. That governance contest – whether they are treated as merely shares as in the AC AIAL holding or whether it’s a full CCO as in Auckland Transport – is a fight worth having. And at minimum I would expect the Entrust candidates to have a clear idea of what they would want.

                   I would be happy to work within Labour to ensure that Auckland Council adopts the whole entity and pulls it in as a full CCO. Watercare and Auckland Transport have shown in recent years that they do respond to the calls of their owner, and they do change.

                   I know what democratic looks like – and it isn’t this. Having the income spread over all of Auckland is not only democratic – because it is the full polis. It is also deeply egalitarian.
                   • millsy …

                     13 October 2018 at 11:37 am

                     Trouble is, there are a lot of households in South Auckland that rely on the Entrust dividend to fill their cupboards and (ironically) pay their power bill. The company I work for does the disconnection and reconnection work in the Auckland area and it is noticable when the dividend comes through. I agree with your desire for council ownership of Vector, but the loss of dividend needs to be taken into account.
                   • Dukeofurl …

                     13 October 2018 at 12:01 pm

                     Ad, are you that grandiose that you really believe this ?

                     “I would be happy to work within Labour to ensure that Auckland Council adopts the whole entity as a full CCO. That stage is fifty years away , if ever, and isnt happening soon.
                     You are still wanting to take away the rights of the existing beneficiaries
                     Watercare isnt listening to anyway , as its self funded, and you give no evidence they are listening or changing.
                     Thats the same position as Entrust would be- self funded .

                     I have noticed that after my rebuttal of your previous main points – you like Gosman just move onto unrelated things. Clearly democracy is only doing what you want. Im happy for Entrust to stay as 75% owner of Vector and pay the beneficiaries $350 pa- and not share that with you – as I gather you dont get anything.

                     Its a forlorn hope that Entrust/Vector will be more customer focused as a full Council CCO when even blind freddy can see the Auckland Council itself has serious problems in that regard. And they dont have a CCO between them and the councillors!

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS