OPEN LETTER/OIA REQUEST TO THE EXECUTIVE CHAIR OF THE AUCKLAND TRANSITION AGENCY- MARK FORD: Where EXACTLY are public rates monies being spent NOW across the Auckland region?

11 October 2010

OPEN LETTER/OIA REQUEST TO THE EXECUTIVE CHAIR OF THE AUCKLAND TRANSITION AGENCY
– MARK FORD:

Where EXACTLY are public rates monies being spent NOW across the Auckland region?

Dear Mark,

As a judicially-recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters; and an “Anti-Corruption campaigner”, I have raised and support the call for the ‘books to be opened’, and for the public of the Auckland region to be told EXACTLY where our rates monies are being spent across the Auckland region.

Given New Zealand’s status as the ‘least corrupt country in the world’, (according to Transparency International’s ‘Corruption Perception Index’ – arguably we should be the most ‘transparent’.

Arguably, if the underpinning principles of ‘open, transparent and democratically accountable’ local government were being upheld – I would not thus have to request this information – it would already be publicly available.

But it’s not – so I am.

According to a list drawn up by the Royal Commission on Auckland Regional Governance – there are a possible 112 services provided by Councils over the Auckland region.

PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:

1) On a Council by Council basis:

Franklin, Papakura, and Rodney District Councils;
Auckland, Manukau, Waitakere and North Shore City Councils;
Auckland Regional Council

Which services are:

a) Currently provided ‘in-house’;
b) Provided by a Council Controlled Organisation(CCO);
c) Contracted out;
d) Not Applicable (not provided by that Council)?

2) On a Council by Council basis:

Franklin, Papakura, and Rodney District Councils;
Auckland, Manukau, Waitakere and North Shore City Councils;
Auckland Regional Council

For each one of the 112 ‘Council service’s, on a ‘one-by-one’ basis, please provide the following information on those services which have been ‘contracted out’:

a) The name of the contractor.
b) The length of the contract.
c) The value of the contract.
d) The general ‘scope’ of the contract.

The provision of this information will provide, for the FIRST TIME, to citizens and ratepayers of the Auckland region, a very accurate and current picture of WHERE EXACTLY OUR public rates monies are being spent.

In order to assist, I have attached two ‘templates’, to assist with the gathering of this information, so that a ‘datum’ can be established from which ‘cost-effectiveness’, and ‘prudent stewardship’ of public rates monies can be measured.

(I have previous experience as a Quality Assurance Co-ordinator, which has proved useful in establishing a framework to quantify this
information.)

3) The first template lists the total number of 112 services provided by Councils over the Auckland region.
(This list was drawn up by the Royal Commission for Auckland Regional Governance).

4) The second template lists on a Council by Council basis, for each one of the 112 ‘Council service’s, on a ‘one-by-one’ basis,
the following detailed information for those services which have been ‘contracted out’.

a) The name of the contractor.
b) The length of the contract.
c) The value of the contract.
d) The general ‘scope’ of the contract.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Please be advised that I first made this information available in my submission to the Royal Commission on
24 June 2008.

I then made this information available to elected representatives in the Auckland region on 8 July 2008, as follows:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

8 July 2008

OPEN LETTER TO ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES IN THE AUCKLAND REGION:

As a judicially recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters, it is my considered opinion that any proposals for ‘Regional Sustainable Development’ of the Auckland region, must be based on FACTS and EVIDENCE.

As I informed the Royal Commissioners on Tuesday 24 June 2008, there is NO base-line or datum upon which to measure ‘cost-effectiveness’ of future amalgamations of strategic assets or services.

To date, there has NEVER been a comprehensive ‘cost-benefit analysis’ since the last amalgamations in 1989, or of the ‘contracting out’ model for council services, compared to council’s providing those services ‘in-house’.

It must be an ABSOLUTE PRIORITY for both the Royal Commission and the Regional Sustainable Development Forum to gather the FACTS which show EXACTLY WHERE RATES MONIES ARE BEING CURRENTLY SPENT OVER THE AUCKLAND REGION.

(This exercise was NOT carried out by the ‘Rates Inquiry’ chaired by David Shand.)

To assist, I have produced two very straightforward templates which can be used to gather and compare these FACTS in a very simple way.

1) The first template lists the total number of 112 services provided by Councils over the Auckland region.
(This list was drawn up by the Royal Commission).

On a Council by Council basis, the question to be answered is:
Which services are currently provided ‘in-house’; provided by a Council Controlled Organisation(CCO); contracted out; or Not Applicable
(not provided by that Council).

2) The second template on a Council by Council basis, for each one of the 112 ‘Council service’s, on a ‘one-by-one’ basis, detailed
information on those which have been ‘contracted out’.

The name of the contractor.
The length of the contract.
The value of the contract.
The general ‘scope’ of the contract.

That way the public should have, for the FIRST TIME a very accurate and current picture of WHERE EXACTLY OUR rates monies are being spent.

3) The next step – once the FACTS have been gathered – should be to carry out the comprehensive ‘cost-benefit’ analysis to compare whether the ‘contracting out’ model has been to the benefit of the public rate-paying majority, as opposed to those to whom these contracts have been issued.

4) Regarding the water issue, again, as I explained to the Royal Commission, there has never been a comprehensive ‘cost-benefit analysis’ which proves:

That the public majority have benefitted from the Metrowater ‘commercialised’ model for water services;

That user-charges are ‘fairer’ as opposed to violating the basic human right to affordable water services by disproportionately burdening poorer families who NEED to use more water;

That ‘user-charges’ for water and wastewater services encourage water conservation.

(My questions to Metrowater CEO Jim Bentley and his response, confirm this. Copies attached.)
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

SUBMISSION TO THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON AUCKLAND REGIONAL GOVERNANCE –

24 June 2008 Penny Bright

WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE BY THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON AUCKLAND REGIONALGOVERNANCE IN ORDER TO MEET YOUR TERMS OF REFERENCE:

On behalf of the Water Pressure Group, the considered opinion of Media Spokesperson and judicially recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ on Metrowater, water and Auckland Regional Governance matters.

” Appointment and order of reference

KNOW YE that We, reposing trust and confidence in your integrity, knowledge, and ability, do, by this Our Commission, nominate,
constitute, and appoint you, The Honourable PETER SALMON QC, Dame MARGARET BAZLEY, and DAVID SHAND to be a Commission to receive representations on, inquire into, investigate, and report on the local government arrangements (including institutions, mechanisms, and processes) that are required in the Auckland region over the foreseeable future in order to maximise, in a cost effective manner,—

(a) the current and future well-being of the region and its communities; and

(b) the region’s contribution to wider national objectives and outcomes:”

1) The FACT is – that there has never been a comprehensive ‘cost-benefit’ analysis since the last council amalgamations in 1989.
EVIDENCE of this is confirmed by Official Information Act replies from:

a) Auckland City Council. (OIA reply 9 May 2008)
b) Manukau City Council. (OIA reply 7 April 2008)
c) Waitakere City Council. (OIA reply 8 April 2008)
d) Franklin District Council. (OIA reply 6 March 2008)
e) Rodney District Council. (OIA reply 14 April 2008)

2) The FACT is – that there has never been a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of the ‘contracting-out’ model, compared with
the provision of council services in-house.
EVIDENCE of this is OIA replies from:

a) Auckland City Council. (OIA reply 9 May 2008)
b) Manukau City Council. (OIA reply 7 April 2008)
c) Waitakere City Council. (OIA reply 8 April 2008)
d) Franklin District Council. (OIA reply 6 March 2008)
e) Rodney District Council. (OIA reply 14 April 2008)

3) Thus – there is no FACTUAL or EVIDENTIAL ‘base-line’ upon which to use as a starting point to quantify which ‘local government
arrangements (including institutions, mechanisms and processes) ARE ‘cost-effective.

4) At this point in time – there is no FACTUAL or EVIDENTIAL overview showing EXACTLY where residents and ratepayers monies are actually being spent over the Auckland region.
This information is hidden from the public because Council Annual Reports do NOT reveal details of ‘contracts issued’ to public
scrutiny – despite the underpinning principles of the Local Government Act 2002 requiring ‘open, transparent and democratically accountable’local government.

5) As this Royal Commission should surely base its recommendations on FACTS and EVIDENCE – rather than unsubstantiated opinion –( irrespective of how often it might be repeated) – here is a series of practical recommendations:

Given that as Commissioners you are empowered under “Consultation and procedures”

“(d) to use relevant expertise, including consultancy and secretarial services, and to conduct, where appropriate, your own research:

And you are empowered, in carrying this our Commission into effect,—
(a) to prepare and publish discussion papers from time to time on topics relevant to the inquiry;

(b) unless you think it proper in any case to withhold any evidence or information obtained by you in the exercise of the powers conferred upon you,—

(i) to include in any discussion papers prepared and published by you all or any of that evidence or information; and

(ii) to publish or otherwise disclose in such other ways that you think fit all or any of that evidence or information:

RECOMMENDATION ONE:

The Royal Commission research exactly where rates monies are being spent in the Auckland region for 2008-2009 financial year.

Total expenditure:
a) Wages and salaries:
b) Contracts to the private sector for goods, services and people.

RECOMMENDATION TWO:

The Royal Commission research an ‘overview’ of which of a possible 112 council services are provided in-house, contracted out, by CCOs or ‘Not Applicable’.

(See “Template for the Auckland Region showing which Council services have been contracted out.”

RECOMMENDATION THREE:

The Royal Commission research a comparison of contracts issued across Auckland region on a service by service basis.

(See “Template for the Auckland region showing and comparing contracted service details.”)

RECOMMENDATION FOUR:

The Royal Commission research a ‘cost-benefit analysis of ‘in-house’ council service provision, compared to contracting out, for each Council area.

RECOMMENDATION FIVE:

The Royal Commission research a ‘cost-benefit analysis’ of the Metrowater model , Manukau Water and United Water models compared with former ‘in house’ council provision.

Please refer to my questions of Metrowater CEO Jim Bentley, and his reply dated 15 April 2007:

“Q: 4. Has Metrowater ever completed a comprehensive ‘cost-benefit’ analysis since Metrowater’s inception in 1997, which PROVES that:

a) Metrowater is ‘more ‘efficient’.
b) ‘User-charges’ are fairer’.
c) ‘User-charges’ encourage conservation.

“A: 4. a) I am not aware of such a cost-benefit analysis but Metrowater takes part in benchmarking within the Auckland and
Australasian water sectors.

b) A cost-benefit analysis will not tell you if “user-charges” are fairer. It is Metrowater’s view that it is fair for customers to pay
according to how much they use.

c) The historical data would indicate that volumes reduced significantly following the introduction of volumetric charging.
There are many media articles on this subject including a recent comment in the Dominion Post, quoting the reduction in water use in
Auckland following the introduction of metering.

“5. Q. Has Metrowater ever completed a comprehensive ‘cost-benefit’ analysis since Metrowater’s inception in 1997, which PROVES that the contracting out of work associated with the provision of water services that was formally provided by Auckland City Council – is a ‘more efficient use of public money’?

“5. A. I am not aware of such an analysis. Most companies consider which activities should be retained in-house and which should be contracted- out. From time to time Metrowater reviews discrete functions to determine whether changes are required, whether for efficiency or service improvement reasons.”

RECOMMENDATION SIX:

The Royal Commission research a comprehensive study of Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) particularly for major infrastructural projects such as roading/transport and water service supplies, in order to ascertain that the public majority benefit rather than private
contractors.

LEGISLATIVE CHANGES:

1) The Royal Commission recommend that it becomes a MANDATORY REQUIREMENT under the Local Government Act that ‘contracts issued’ are detailed on council Annual Reports, so that they are available for public scrutiny, and ‘prudent stewardship’ can be exercised over OUR resources.

2) The Royal Commission recommend that it becomes a MANDATORY REQUIREMENT that corruption risk assessment is an integral part of council risk management assessment.

3) That because currently there is no statutory third party that monitors or audits for corruption risk, and that there are no audit processes in place to check for links between Council staff and contractors, Council staff and developers that Royal Commission recommend the establishment of a New Zealand Independent Commission Against Corruption based upon similar lines to the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption.

CONCLUSION:

Please be reminded that independently of the Royal Commission – that behind the public’s back – the ‘ONE PLAN’ for Auckland is secretly being worked on behind closed doors. (*1)

FOR WHOSE BENEFIT?

Equally, independently of the Royal Commission, is my Court case – which will be a test case – again in defence of ‘open, transparent and democratically accountable’ local government.

I am disputing and refusing to pay my rates until Auckland City Council:

(a) publishes full details of all monies spent by Auckland City Council on private sector contracts for ‘goods, services and people’ ;

(b)undertakes to conducts a full inquiry/ cost benefit analysis into

(i) the ‘contracting out’ model for provision of Auckland City Council services as opposed to Council ‘in-house’ provision and;

(ii) the Metrowater ‘commercialised’ model for provision of Auckland City Council water and wastewater services to determine on the basis of facts and evidence:-

* Whether Metrowater’s ‘user-charges’ for water and wastewater services are ‘fairer’, or violate the basic human right of affordable water by disproportionately burdening poorer families;

Whether Metrowater’s user-charges for water and wastewater services encourage water conservation;

*Whether Metrowater is ‘more efficient’, and the contracting out of water and wastewater maintenance and operation expenses is more cost-effective to the rate paying majority compared with Auckland City Council providing these services ‘in-house’ via their ‘Works Department’.

*I ENCOURAGE OTHER CONCERNED CITIZENS TO JOIN ME.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*1 CORRECTION: The public were excluded from a Regional Sustainable Development Forum ‘workshop’ 9 April 2008.
Other meetings of the RSDF have been open to the public – but there is no ‘Public Forum’ opportunity to address this forum.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Yours sincerely,

Penny Bright

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

https://waterpressure.wordpress.com

Ph (09) 846 9825
021 211 4 127