Have CCO Metrowater followed the law, complied with their statutory duties and ‘Statement of Intent’ in the Iosefa case? YOU BE THE JUDGE.

5 June 2010

On Wednesday 9 June 2010, Metrowater are attempting to sell by public auction the family home of Maria and Luapo Iosefa over a disputed Metrowater bill.

This is the first time that Metrowater have ever obtained a ‘Sale Order’ in the High Court
to force the sale of a family home, over a (disputed) Metrowater account.

This is a ‘test case’, happening right now, of how the corporate CCO model for water services, Metrowater actually works in practice.

Metrowater has statutory duties under the Local Government Act 2002, to act in a ‘socially responsible’ manner, and in accordance with their Statement of Intent, regarding their ‘debt management processes.

METROWATER’S STATUTORY DUTIES AS A COUNCIL-CONTROLLED ORGANISATION UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2002 STATE:

” 59 Principal objective of council-controlled organisation

(1) The principal objective of a council-controlled organisation is to—

(a) achieve the objectives of its shareholders, both commercial and non-commercial, as specified in the statement of intent; and

(c) exhibit a sense of social and environmental responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates and by endeavouring to accommodate or encourage these when able to do so; ”

____________________________________________________
60 Decisions relating to operation of council-controlled organisations

All decisions relating to the operation of a council-controlled organisation must be made by, or under the authority of, the board of the organisation in accordance with—
(a) its statement of intent; and
(b) its constitution.

Metrowater has a ‘debt management process’ clearly outlined in their ‘Statement of Intent’, as follows:

METROWATER STATEMENT OF INTENT 2009 ( Pg 7)

“THE NATURE OF OUR BUSINESS

1. Commercial Reliability

…..

* Maintain a robust customer debt management process that is fair and reasonable and audited on an annual basis. ”
___________________________________________________________________

Metrowater’ CEO Tim Hammond, sent this response on 2 June 2010:

from Tim Hammond
to Penny Bright
date Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 5:01 PM
subject Response to emaul of 2 June 2010 regardign Iosefa case

Jun 3

Dear Penny,

Thank you for your email of 2 June 2010. Metrowater does not believe there has been a mistake made in the invoicing as claimed and our legal advisors Buddle Findlay are responding directly to Mr Jacobson the Iosefa’s legal advisor directly regarding the points he has raised. In the meantime I can confirm Metrowater will not at this point be instructing its lawyers to withdraw the legal action.

Yours sincerely

Tim Hammond
Acting Chief Executive

Tel: +64 9 624 4700
Email: tim.hammond@metrowater.co.nz
Web: http://www.metrowater.co.nz

____________________________________________________________________

Are Metrowater complying with their statutory duties under the Local Government Act 2002, to act in a ‘socially responsible’ manner, and in accordance with their Statement of Intent regarding their ‘debt management processes’?

YOU BE THE JUDGE!

If you DON’T think that Metrowater are complying with their statutory duties under the Local Government Act 2002, to act in a ‘socially responsible’ manner, and in accordance with their Statement of Intent regarding their ‘debt management processes – email
CEO Tim Hammond and tell him so.

tim.hammond@metrowater.co.nz

The body that has the statutory duty to ‘monitor the performance’ of Metrowater, is the Finance and Strategy Committee of Auckland City Council.

If you DON’T think that Metrowater are complying with their statutory duties under the Local Government Act 2002, to act in a ‘socially responsible’ manner, and in accordance with their Statement of Intent regarding their ‘debt management processes, email the members of Finance and Strategy Committee and demand that that some ‘Council Control’ is exercised over this ‘Council Controlled Organisation’ – Metrowater – and that Metrowater is instructed to cease forthwith proceedings against the Iosefas in the High Court to sell their family home.

Email the Chair of Auckland City Council’s Finance and Strategy Committee, Councillor Doug Armstrong:

cr.armstrong@aucklandcity.govt.nz

Email other members of the Auckland City Council Finance and Strategy Committee:

cr.bhatnagar@aucklandcity.govt.nz
cr.goldsmith@aucklandcity.govt.nz
cr.hay@aucklandcity.govt.nz
cr.donnelly@aucklandcity.govt.nz
cr.northey@aucklandcity.govt.nz
cr.casey@aucklandcity.govt.nz

NB! Both Auckland City Councillors Doug Armstrong and Paul Goldsmith are Citizens and Ratepayers candidates who will be standing for the ‘SUPER CITY’ Auckland Council, in the election this October:

http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz/files/2010/04/Candidate-profile-pack.pdf

Albert-Eden-Roskill Ward

Cr Paul Goldsmith Auckland City Councillor

Orakei Ward
Cr Douglas Armstrong QSO Auckland City Councillor

Email Mayor John Banks, and ask him why he is allowing Metrowater’s unprecedented corporate bullying and harassment against the Iosefa family to happen ‘on his watch’?

mayor@aucklandcity.govt.nz

Email the Minister of Local Government – Rodney Hide – and demand that he intervene to stop this house sale, given the ‘statutes’ which are supposed to ensure that CCOs act in a ‘socially responsible’ manner, and in accordance with their ‘Statement of Intent’ – appear in the case of Metrowater, to be meaningless, and not worth the paper they are written on.

r.hide@ministers.govt.nz
_____________________________________________________________________

MY LATEST REPLY TO METROWATER’S CEO – TIM HAMMOND:

4 June 2010

URGENT ‘OPEN LETTER’ TO METROWATER’S CEO TIME HAMMOND-
“ARE YOU PREPARED TO TAKE FULL PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ALL POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES, FOR INSTRUCTIONS TO METROWATER’S LAWYERS?

Dear Tim,

RE: Metro Water Limited (“Metrowater” v Iosefa -the letter from Metrowater’s lawyer, Sherridan Cook, Buddle Findlay dated 3 June 2010, regarding Metrowater’s proposed sale by public auction on Wednesday 9 June, of the family home of Maria and Luapo Iosefa, 89A Canal Rd Avondale.

(For ease of reference, I have raised my concerns about statements made by your lawyer, directly after each one of your lawyers paragraphs: )
______________________________________________________________________

Letter from Metrowater’s lawyer, Sherridan Cook, Buddle Findlay dated 3 June 2010

“Metro Water Limited (“Metrowater”) v losefa

1. We refer to your letters dated 2 and 3 June 2010.

2. The allegation in your letters that Metrowater is acting unreasonably by continuing to proceed with the sale is rejected. Your clients have known about the potential for a sale order for some time. Specifically, on 3 December 2007, Metrowater wrote to Mr and Mrs losefa and explained that, if their outstanding account was not paid,Metrowater would be left with no alternative but to proceed with a sale order.
______________________________________________________________________

(2) Your lawyer states: “…Metrowater would be left with no alternative but to proceed with a sale order.’

This is clearly not true, and not consistent with Metrowater’s Statement of Intent.

METROWATER STATEMENT OF INTENT 2009 ( Pg 7)

“THE NATURE OF OUR BUSINESS

1. Commercial Reliability

…..

* Maintain a robust customer debt management process that is fair and reasonable and audited on an annual basis. ”

_____________________________

4) METROWATER HAVE STATED PUBLICLY IN THEIR 2008/2009 ANNUAL REPORT:

“….

Ongoing debt which is still unpaid, after collection and legal process can be secured by Metrowater by obtaining a charging order on the debtors property through the district court.”
Metrowater had charging orders over Maria and Luapo Iosefa’s property.

But – in the case of this family – Metrowater are taking steps that they are not with any other family, in applying to sell their property.
______________________________________________________________________

3.Following that letter, Metrowater obtained further judgments against your clients and it continued to request settlement of their outstanding account. In November 2009,Metrowater obtained a sale order for your clients’ property. The sale was set down for February 2010 and we understand that you were aware of that sale order. However, Metrowater elected not to proceed with the sale at that time. As you know, Metrowater has now obtained a new sale order.

4.On 18 March 2010, you wrote to us and requested all the invoices (over a 10 year period) that had been sent to your clients. On 16 April 2010, we sent you those invoices by email together with a breakdown of the total amount outstanding. On 20 April 2010, you advised us that you could not open the documents attached to our email. On that same day, we re-sent those documents by post.

5.Therefore, you and your clients have known of the outstanding debt, and the potential for sale, for a considerable period of time. The delay in raising the issues in your recent letters is not in any way the result of Metrowater’s conduct.

6.In any event, none of the issues raised in your letters, or the report from Verisure Investigators Limited, will prevent the sale of the property on 9 June 2010. We respond to the issues raised in your 2 June letter as follows:

(a) Metrowater is not in breach of its statutory duties under the Local Government Act 2002. As discussed above, your clients were advised in December 2007 of the potential sale if their outstanding account was not paid. Metrowater has
given your clients a number of opportunities to pay the outstanding account, including a settlement proposal in its letter dated 14 November 2008 and a settlement request in our letter dated 16 April 2010. Metrowater’s approach to recovery of the debt has been socially responsible and consistent with the interests of its customers.
______________________________________________________________________

6. (a) Your lawyer states:

“Metrowater is not in breach of its statutory duties under the Local Government Act 2002″

This is clearly not true.
_________________________________

METROWATER’S STATUTORY DUTIES AS A COUNCIL-CONTROLLED ORGANISATION UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2002 STATE:

” 59 Principal objective of council-controlled organisation

(1) The principal objective of a council-controlled organisation is to—

(a) achieve the objectives of its shareholders, both commercial and non-commercial, as specified in the statement of intent; and

(c) exhibit a sense of social and environmental responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates and by endeavouring to accommodate or encourage these when able to do so; ”

____________________________________________________
60 Decisions relating to operation of council-controlled organisations

All decisions relating to the operation of a council-controlled organisation must be made by, or under the authority of, the board of the organisation in accordance with—
(a) its statement of intent; and
(b) its constitution.
_________________________________

As outlined in my response to para 2) Metrowater are in clear breach of your Statement of Intent:

METROWATER STATEMENT OF INTENT 2009 ( Pg 7)

“THE NATURE OF OUR BUSINESS

1. Commercial Reliability.

* Maintain a robust customer debt management process that is fair and reasonable and audited on an annual basis. ”
______________________________________________________________________

(b) We accept that there is a typographical error in paragraph 6 of the statement of claim in proceeding CIV-2009-004-0375. As at 24 February 2009, the balance of $1 ,992.74 was due and owing by your clients to Metrowater. The claim states that the period to which that debt relates was from 9 October 2008 to 8 January 2009. However, the debt relates to invoices for the period from 7 April 2008 to 8 January 2009 (for water supplied between 4 January 2008 to 5 January 2009). The judgment will not be set aside on the basis of this error and, in any event, the time for raising such a query has long passed.
______________________________________________________________________

6(b) Your lawyer is admitting that Metrowater’s Statement of Claim was factually incorrect.
The ‘Judgment Debt’ arising from Metrowater’s factually incorrect Statement of Claim, was a ‘Judgment by Default’ – an undefended hearing, which Metrowater are using as the basis to sell the Iosefa’s family home.
______________________________________________________________________

(c) Mr and Mrs losefa are the registered proprietors of the property described in certificate of title NA 136B/742 (“Property”). There are two dwellings on the Property. One dwelling is a weatherboard duplex. The water meter for this dwelling is meter 05A057572.
We understand that, in or about 2004, a new dwelling was built on your clients’ Property. A separate title was not issued for the new dwelling (although we understand it may be numbered 89C Canal Road). In 2004, Metrowater received an application from your clients for a water connection to the new dwelling. A connection was provided to the new dwelling and a water meter installed, being meter 03A263003.

The new dwelling is not on a separate title; it is a secondary dwelling on the Property. As a result, the water meter for the new dwelling is also on the Property. Your clients are responsible to Metrowater for payment of the water
and waste water services supplied to the two dwellings (as recorded on the two water meters) on the Property. There has not been a duplication of billing.
______________________________________________________________________

(d) Metrowater is not attempting to sell three dwellings in its advertisements.Metrowater is advertising for sale the property described in certificate of title NA136B/742, which contains two dwellings as discussed above. A copy of the
advertisement is enclosed. It does not show 89B Canal Road (NA136/743).

______________________________________________________________________

6(d) Your lawyer states:

“It does not show 89B Canal Road (NA136/743).”

What then is Metrowater’s understanding of the property ’89B Canal Road (NA136/743′?

Which property is 89B Canal Road (NA136/743), and who owns it, according to Metrowater?
______________________________________________________________________

(e) We have seen an order dated 26 May 2009 for substituted service of the claim documents (in proceeding CIV-2009-004-0375) and an affidavit of service of those documents. We have no reason to believe that your clients were not
served personally and/or served in accordance with the order for substituted service.

______________________________________________________________________

6(e) Your lawyer states:

“We have no reason to believe that your clients were not
served personally and/or served in accordance with the order for substituted service.”

Are Metrowater’s lawyers aware of the following?

‘Affidavit of Peter de Jong in support of ex parte Notice of Interlocutory Application for Orders Dispensing with Personal Service of the Defendant and Granting Substituted Service’ sworn 29th April 2009, which states:

“3. ON 16 April 2009, I served the First Defendant, Luapo Iosefa, at 89a Canal Road, Avondale, Auckland.

Particulars supporting service marked as exhibit “A”.

However – the above-mentioned exhibit “A”, states:

“2. I served that documents at 89C Canal Rd, Avondale.”

______________________________________________________________________

7) We respond to the issues raised in your 3 June letter, and the report from Verisure Investigators Limited, as follows:

(a) The statement of claim did not need to be supported by an affidavit and Metrowater was entitled to obtain judgment by default without filing or serving evidence of the unpaid debt.

______________________________________________________________________

7 (a) Your lawyer states:

“Metrowater was entitled to obtain judgment by default without filing or serving evidence of the unpaid debt”

But – your lawyer has admitted that Metrowater’s Statement of Claim was factually incorrect.

The ‘Judgment Debt’ arising from Metrowater’s factually incorrect Statement of Claim, was a ‘Judgment by Default’ – an undefended hearing, which Metrowater are using as the basis to sell the Iosefa’s family home.

So – Metrowater are lawfully entitled just to ‘make it up’ or ‘get it wrong’ and sell a family home on that basis?
Surely any Court Judgment needs to be on FACTS and CORRECT information?

How does this meet Metrowater’s above-mentioned statutory duties to:

“(c) exhibit a sense of social and environmental responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates and by endeavouring to accommodate or encourage these when able to do so; “
______________________________________________________________________

(b) The terms of the two supply contracts that applied during the period in which the debt arose were identical in all material respects. The fact that two supply contracts applied is immaterial.
______________________________________________________________________

(c) It is irrelevant that Metrowater elected to pursue its claim in the District Court, rather than the Disputes Tribunal.
______________________________________________________________________

7 (c) Your lawyer states:

“It is irrelevant that Metrowater elected to pursue its claim in the District Court, rather than the Disputes Tribunal.”

Please be reminded of Metrowater’s stated ‘Customer Complaint Process’

http://www.metrowater.co.nz/sitecollectiondocuments/working_with_you_customer_terms_booklet.pdf

“Putting things right
Our customer complaint process
Resolving complaints

Metrowater is committed to providing you with high quality water and wastewater services. If you have any problems with our services, please contact us so that we can deal with your enquiry or complaint. We will investigate the matter and respond to your concern promptly, courteously and efficiently.

Three steps to resolving your complaint
Step 1: Call us
If you are unhappy or concerned about any aspect of our service, please phone our Customer Services Team on 09 624 4800, and our trained staff will do their best to resolve your issue there and then.

If the matter cannot be resolved immediately by our Customer Services Team, we will investigate the situation further to determine what occurred and what we can do to resolve the matter.

We will always try to respond to you with an answer within five working days – by telephone where possible, or in writing. In the case of a longer investigation, we will give you an initial reply within five working days and a more detailed response within ten working days.

If for any reason you are still unhappy with the resolution, or you believe Metrowater has breached a specific duty or obligation owed to you, you may wish to move to Step 2

Step 2: Work with us
If you have a specific complaint and are not happy with the response you receive, you may wish to discuss mediation or arbitration with us. If both parties agree to proceed with mediation or arbitration, we will usually share any costs involved.

If mediation or arbitration is not acceptable to either party or if we can not agree that there is a genuine basis for complaint, you can seek to have the matter escalated through more formal proceedings.

Step 3: Other options
If we have been unable to work together to satisfactorily resolve a genuine dispute, either of us may refer the matter to the Disputes Tribunal or, for matters over $7,500, to the Court.

Disputes involving outstanding payments
If there is a payment or outstanding balance on an account relating to a genuine dispute involving a specific breach of obligations or duties we will, while the dispute is being considered, freeze the disputed amount. This means Metrowater will not initiate any further collection actions or charge any interest on the disputed amount while we investigate the matter.”
___________________________________________________________

Are you or your lawyer aware of Metrowater’s statutory duties arising from the Fair Trading Act?

That Metrowater have a lawful obligation to follow the ‘Disputes Process’ you have publicly stated on your website?
______________________________________________________________________

Fair Trading Act 1986

Part 1 Misleading and deceptive conduct, false representations, and unfair practices
11 Misleading conduct in relation to services

No person shall, in trade, engage in conduct that is liable to mislead the public as to the nature, characteristics, suitability for a purpose, or quantity of services.”

Please be reminded that Maria and Luapo Iosefa have never received a reply from Metro Water to their ‘Letter of Dispute’ faxed to Metrowater on 2 July 2003.

______________________________________________________________________

(d) We have addressed in paragraph 6(b) above the issue of the period in which the debt arose.

(e) As discussed above, there are two dwellings on certificate of title NA136B/742. As a result, there are two water meters for certificate of title NA 136B/742.
______________________________________________________________________

(f) Mr and Mrs losefa are responsible to Metrowater for payment of the water and waste water services supplied to the two dwellings on certificate of title NA136B/742. They were sent invoices for those services, which they have failed to pay.
______________________________________________________________________

(g) Metrowater was entitled to obtain a sale order and the sale order was correctly issued by the Sherriff.
______________________________________________________________________

7 (g) Your lawyer states:

“Metrowater was entitled to obtain a sale order and the sale order was correctly issued by the Sherriff.

As outlined above in response to your lawyers paras (2), (6 a), (6 b), (6d), (6e),(7a),(7c) this is clearly not the case.
______________________________________________________________________

(h) Metrowater has not been reckless or prejudiced against the losefas. There has not been a miscarriage of justice. In all of the above circumstances, our client will not withdraw its sale order. We will defend any application for an injunction to prevent the sale and/or any application to set aside the judgment.

Yours faithfully,
BUDDLE FINDLAY
_______________________________________________________

7 (h) Your lawyer states:

“Metrowater has not been reckless or prejudiced against the losefas. There has not been a miscarriage of justice. In all of the above circumstances, our client will not withdraw its sale order.”

Are Metrowater and your lawyer, also aware of Metrowater’s statutory duties arising from the Human Rights Act 1993, and the Human Rights Amendment Act 2001?

Human Rights Act 1993 No 82 (as at 01 October 2008), Public Act
Discrimination in provision of goods and services
44 Provision of goods and services

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person who supplies goods, facilities, or services to the public or to any section of the public—

(a) To refuse or fail on demand to provide any other person with those goods, facilities, or services; or

(b) To treat any other person less favourably in connection with the provision of those goods, facilities, or services than would otherwise be the case,—

by reason of any of the prohibited grounds of

discrimination.

___________________________________________________________

Human Rights Amendment Act 2001

Part 1A
Discrimination by Government, related persons and bodies, or persons or bodies acting with legal authority

* Part 1A (sections 20I to 20L) was inserted, as from 1 January 2002, by section 6 Human Rights Amendment Act 2001 (2001 No 96).

21 Prohibited grounds of discrimination

· (1) For the purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are—
(j) Political opinion, which includes the lack of a particular political opinion or any political opinion.

______________________________–

Maria and Luapo Iosefa are the first case where Metrowater have applied for a Sale Order to sell their property over a (disputed) Metrowater account.

As they are the ‘first’ – they are being treated in a way that is different to everybody else (who have Charging Orders over their property).

Therefore, if they are not being treated the same as others in the same situation – then they are being treated unfairly, and in a discriminatory manner.

It is my considered opinion, that the discrimination is political in nature and arises from the fact that Maria and Luapo Iosefa are members of the Water Pressure Group – the evidence being as follows:

EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION ON THE GROUNDS OF POLITICAL OPINION – EXPRESSED POLITICAL BIAS TOWARDS WATER PRESSURE GROUP MEMBERS GENERALLY, AND MYSELF AS WPG MEDIA SPOKESPERSON:

a)It appears that Metrowater are discriminating against the Iosefa family, in commencing legal proceedings to sell their house, because they are members of the Water Pressure Group.

b) Metrowater’s discriminatory attitude towards Water Pressure Group members, and myself as Water Pressure Group Media Spokesperson, has been clearly expressed in Court documents presented by Metrowater’s acting Solicitor, Mr Michael Tolhurst from City Law, in the recent above-mentioned case of Metrowater v W Blake – CIV-2008-004-001058, 27 Jan 2010); and in the transcript of evidence of Metrowater’s Legal and Complaince Officer, Mr John Hilario, arising from that same case:

i) “PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM FOR JUDICIAL CONFERENCE ON 22 DECEMBER 2009

5. The other issue about which the Plaintiff is concerned in this matter is the allocation of time at 2 days. This is a straightforward case. The Plaintiff has provided water under a contract for supply for which the Defendant, Mr Blake has failed to pay.
The Plaintif’s task is to prove supply and non-payment.

Mr Blake has an advocate who will no doubt be in Court with him, Penny Bright.
Ms Bright is a political activist who is not legally trained. She indicated she would be calling witnesses to attest to Bill of Rights violations regarding the charging for water and general illegalities in regards to the formation of the Plaintiff Company. Ms Bright made these representations to the Court at the last Judicial Conference.

6. There is nothing pleaded by the Defendant in regards to alleged Bill of Rights abuse and illegality around the formation of Metrowater. It is submitted therefore that any briefs of witnesses appearing for Mr Blake ought only to deal with his defence to the claim ie that he was not ever supplied with water and that Metrowater is unable to charge him for water because Metrowater has no way of knowing what water has been used by him if any. It is submitted that any briefs of evidence which are prepared by Ms Bright or Mr Blake which deal with the political situation surrounding the formation of Metrowater and the right of Metrowater to charge for wastewater ought to be struck out by the Court. Certainly if the Court does not feel that it can take that step at this stage it is submitted that a direction to this effect ought to be given to Ms Bright and Mr Blake. The Plaintiff’s concern is that a straightforward matter of the failure by Mr Blake to pay for his water has been turned into a political sideshow by Ms Bright. This case is a claim for unpaid water but has been estimated to take 2 days only because Ms Bright indicated to the Court last time it came before the Court that she was intending to call people to give evidence re the formation of Metrowater, consequent illegality of that formation and breaches of the Bill of Rights. None of those matters are dealt with at all in the Statement of Defence which speaks loosely of fraud and harassment but does not deal at any stage with the Bill of Rights or illegalities in Metrowater’s ability to supply and charge for water and wastewater. …………………….

MW Tolhurst Solicitor for the Plaintiff

22 December 2009”

ii) TRANSCRIPT OF THE NOTES OF EVIDENCE

Metrowater v Blake – CIV -2008 – 004 – 001058 (27 Jan 2010)

Cross-examination by Ms Bright of Metrowater’s Legal and Compliance Officer Mr John Hilario:

Pg 12 (Lines 7 – 17)

“A. Based on Metrowater records the reason for charging Mr Blake on an unmetered basis was that on or about 19 May 1999 pursuant to its then policy on dealing with non-paying accounts, Metrowater disconnected Mr Blakes’s property from the public network. The metre was removed. Immediately thereafter Mr Blake reconnected his property to the public network without Metrowater’s consent.

By way of background to this action by Mr Blake, he is a member of the Water Pressure Group which is headed by Ms Penny Bright. In particular this group took exception to the decision by the Auckland City Council to separate the provision of water services from charges which up until the date of separation had been part of the general rates charge paid by ratepayers.

Pg 16 (Lines 7 – 27)

“Q. In terms of Metrowater’s customer terms, is it fair to say that Metrowater is also covered by the Human Rights Act, section 44, provision of goods and services, subsection (1) it shall be unlawful for any person who supplies goods, facilities or services to the public or any section of the public, (a) to refuse or fail on demand to provide any other person with those goods, facilities or services or, (b) to treat any other person less favourably in connection with the provision of those goods, facilities or services than would othersie be the case by reason of any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination.

A. Well I’m not sure what the question is.

Q. Does this legislation apply to Metrowater in your understanding?

A. Well from what I know the Human Rights Act will apply to all entities and persons in New Zealand so in that sense, yes we are covered by that but at the same time our policy is to treat all our customers alike.

Q. Would it be fair to say that one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination under section 21 of the Human Rights Amendment Act 2001, subsection (1) for the purposes of this Act the prohibited grounds of discrimination include (j) political opinion which includes the lack of a particular political opinion or any political opinion. Do you accept that Metrowater is covered by that legislation?

A. I haven’t memorised the Act but if it’s as you read it then, yes I accept it.

Q. Is it your view that the Water Pressure Group is effectively an organisation with a political aim of being opposed to Metrowater because it’s opposed to user charges which Metrowater support?

A. I believe the Water Pressure Group has represented itself to be a political organisation.

Q. Is that how a person such as yourself sees the Water Pressure Group?

A. In my personal capacity, yes.

Q. How about in your official role as the Legal and Complaince Officer of Metrowater – do you see the Water Pressure Group basically as a political organisation with an aim that’s diametrically opposed to Metrowater’s basic reason for being?

A. As Metrowater’s lawyer I basically see the Water Pressure Group as a group of people who don’t pay their water charges.”

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

PLEASE CONFIRM BY 5PM TODAY FRIDAY 4 JUNE 2010, THAT YOU TIM HAMMOND, TAKE FULL PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AS CEO OF METROWATER, AND HAVING READ THE CONTENTS OF THIS LETTER, CONFIRM THAT, KNOWINGLY AND WILLINGLY, YOU WILL NOT INSTRUCT YOUR LAWYER SHERRIDAN COOK TO WITHDRAW THE SALE ORDER IN THE “Metro Water Limited (“Metrowater”) v losefa MATTER.

Yours sincerely,

Penny Bright
Media Spokesperson
Water Pressure Group
Judicially recognised ‘public Watchdog’ on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters.
“Anti-corruption campaigner”

Ph (09) 846 9825
021 211 4 127