Help ‘Public Watchdog’ Penny Bright ‘blow the whistle’ at Transparency International’s 14th Anti-Corruption Conference 10 – 14 November 2010!

16 October 2010

Transparency International are holding their 14th Anti-Corruption Conference from 10 – 14 November 2010, in Bangkok, Thailand.

It is Transparency International’s ‘Corruption Perception Index’ – that New Zealand is supposed to lead the world.
www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/cpi_2009_table

I want to ask Transparency International heavyweights – to their faces, how on earth NZ can be ‘perceived’ to be the ‘least corrupt country in the world’ – when we have so little genuine transparency in so many areas?

Issues I intend to raise, include, but are not limited to the following:

1) Because details of ‘contracts issued’ are not published in local or central government Annual Reports, residents and ratepayers, and taxpayers don’t know where billions of dollars of public monies are being spent.
We are NOT being given the ‘devilish detail’ of the name of the contractor; the value, term and scope of the contract. If NZ was truly ‘transparent’, this information would be published in Annual Reports so it was available for public scrutiny.

2) There is no mandatory statutory requirement for ‘Registers of Interests’ for local government elected representatives, or council staff responsible for signing off contracts worth hundreds of millions of citizens and ratepayers hard-earned dollars.

HOW CAN CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS BE CHECKED IF THEY ARE NOT DECLARED IN THE FIRST PLACE?

3) There has never been any ‘due diligence/ cost-benefit’ analysis since the last council amalgamations; of the ‘contracting-out’ model; or of the Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) model – yet the Auckland $UPERCITY has been forced upon the public of the Auckland region without a binding vote of citizens and ratepayers.

4)There is no ‘Code of Conduct’ for NZ MPs.

5)NZ Ministers can hold shares.
(Australian Federal Government Ministers cannot.)

6)There is no ‘Register of Lobbyists’, so that there is transparency regarding who is lobbying Ministers, and on whose behalf.

7) There is no ‘quarantine period’, particularly for Ministers, when leaving public office for the private sector.

8) NZ has no equivalent ‘INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION’, ie: we have no statutory third party ‘Public Watchdog’ which is tasked with PREVENTING corruption and corrupt practices.

The Police, SFO, Office of the Auditor-General, all deal with complaints AFTER the event.
(If they bother to act after they have been provided with facts and evidence.)

9)NZ has very little legislation which enforces transparency in public office, but has been pushing through legislation which encroaches on the privacy and civil liberties of ordinary citizens.
(Search and Surveillance legislation).

10 ) NZ lacks the most basic form of transparency in our judiciary when court proceedings are NOT recorded. Particularly in the High Court, I have witnessed and personally experienced the failure to record proceedings, and failure to provide transcripts or recordings of proceedings.

HOW CAN JUSTICE BE DONE OR BE SEEN TO BE DONE WHEN THERE IS NO RECORD IN COURT OF WHAT WAS DONE??

11) Judgments made in public courts are being suppressed by Judges making ‘Court Orders’ based on ‘judicial discretion’ – NOT the ‘rule of law.

12) Members of Transparency International New Zealand, after denying membership to citizens actively fighting corruption here in New Zealand,had Police arrest two of us after denying access to the Transparency International NZ AGM on 9 November 2009 – International Anti-Corruption day.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

When 125 people donate $20 – I will have enough money to get to and attend this Conference.

Any donations will be an ‘investment’ in the fight against corruption in New Zealand!

Kiwibank

Account Name: P M Bright
Account Number: 38-9010-0725719-00

Hope you can help!

Thanks!

Penny

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

waterpressure@gmail.com

__________________________________________________________________________________________

28 September 2010

Setting the global agenda
Innovation and change

2010 IACC hosts
Contact

This November more than 1,000 people are heading to Bangkok to tackle some of the most pressing global challenges at the 14th International Anti-Corruption Conference (IACC). Since 1983, the conference series has served as the leading international platform for those committed to advancing the global governance agenda. The importance of transparency and anti-corruption has steadily risen on national, regional and international agendas. Yet the challenges we face today – a global economy still reeling from a severe recession, a global community lacking consensus on a binding climate agreement, and stumbling progress towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals – have eroded public trust in governments and institutions.

The 14th IACC seeks to address these challenges head on with its theme “Restoring Trust: Global Action for Transparency”. Under that banner, participants and visionary speakers from civil society, business, government, academia and the media will address the following issues at five plenary sessions and more than 40 workshops:

>> Global peace and security

Insecurity caused by illegal networks destabilises social, economic and political orders worldwide, while individuals, especially the most vulnerable, bear the biggest cost – in many cases with their own lives.

>> Fuelling transparency and accountability in the natural resources and energy markets

So many of the countries endowed with great natural resource wealth remain home to some of the world’s poorest people. Fostering greater transparency and accountability in the extractive industries is critical to improving people’s lives and our environment.

>> Climate governance: ensuring a collective commitment

The effects of climate change are already being felt around the world, requiring a globally coordinated response. Transparency and effective monitoring are crucial to ensuring corruption does not undermine climate change adaptation and mitigation initiatives.

>> Strengthening global action for an accountable corporate world

A lack of transparency and failed oversight triggered the financial crisis, leading to a crisis of investor confidence and public trust. The time has come for financial markets to be forged in the spirit of transparency and accountability to the benefit of everyone.

>> Reaching our millennium development goals

World leaders have recently met at a UN summit to determine how to build on progress made in the past decade towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Removing the brakes corruption puts on development will be key to accelerating progress in the remaining five years.

A key objective of the IACC is to bring practitioners and decision makers together to create change and confront the view that corruption cannot be beaten. The Bangkok IACC will offer multiple platforms to foster creativity and thematic exchanges. A special feature will be the People’s Empowerment Initiative, organised as an open format BarCamp, where a small number of speakers deliver 20 minute inspirational speeches on their areas of expertise. Priority issues for the People’s Empowerment Initiative include:

* Social media, social monitoring, whistleblowing and complaint mechanisms
* Citizen engagement in collective action, and the application of technology and marketing for social outreach and activism
* Empowering the victims of corruption through civil and criminal litigation.

Following the speeches, participants will have the opportunity to exchange ideas in an open marketplace. The People’s Empowerment Initiative sessions will take place on days two, three and four of the conference.

For the first time the IACC, in collaboration with the host country, will welcome the Leadership Forum, a round table discussion facilitating a cross-country dialogue between heads of state. Participating leaders will be announced on http://www.14iacc.org in early October.

A much anticipated highlight of each IACC is the conference declaration. The IACC declarations serve as testimony to the spirit of the conferences. The Guatemala Declaration drawn up at the 12th IACC, for instance, records the commitment of Central American countries and the Dominican Republic to a corruption-free zone. Drawn up during the conference, the Bangkok Declaration will capture the essence of the 14th IACC discussions.

The IACC facilitates exchange and dialogue between people from around the globe who share a common vision: eliminating corruption. If you would like to attend please visit http://www.14iacc.org and register before 31 October 2010. Onsite registration will be available during the conference.

Confirmed speakers include:

* Alan L. Boeckmann, Chairman of the board and CEO, Fluor Corporation
* Prof Paul Collier, Professor of Economics and Director for the Centre for the Study of African Economics, University of Oxford
* Georg Kell, Executive Director, UN Global Compact
* Ashok Khosla, President, International Union for Conservation of Nature
* Haruhiko Kuroda, President, Asian Development Bank
* Kunio Mikuriya Secretary General, World Customs Organization
* Salil Shetty, Secretary General, Amnesty International
* and many more…

Press accreditation for the 14th IACC is available for all journalists. Please visit the Press Accreditation Guidelines.

The 14th IACC is being hosted jointly by the IACC Council, the Royal Thai Government, the Thai Ministry of Justice, the office of the country’s National Anti-Corruption Commission, Transparency International and Transparency Thailand.

For more details please write to: info@14iacc.org

http://www.14iacc.org

http://www.iacconference.org

Keep up to date and follow us on Twitter

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

Open Letter’ to Mark Ford, appointed CEO of a bigger Watercare and Chair of the ‘Statutory Entity’ Auckland Transport .

8 October 2010

‘Open Letter’ to Mark Ford, appointed CEO of a bigger Watercare and Chair of the ‘Statutory Entity’ Auckland Transport .

cc: ‘Interim’ CEO of Watercare Services Ltd:
Ian Parton –
please ensure that this email is passed on to the Chair and all Directors of Watercare Services Ltd. Thanks.

Dear Mark,

Eighteen months ago, you left your positions as CEO of Watercare Services Ltd, and Chair of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA) as the appointed Executive Chair of the Auckland Transition Agency.

( The unelected appointed body to set up the ‘$UPERCITY’ structure for the corporate takeover of the Auckland region).

Now you are set to go back through this ‘revolving’ corporate door to return as CEO of a far bigger Watercare and Chair of Auckland Transport.

Remember what the Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hide said on 22 May 2009, when he announced your appointment?

www.ata.govt.nz/web/cms_ata.nsf/webnewslive/WGTN-7THTTM?OpenDocument&viewname=webnewsall&count=1&tn=News%20/%20Media

“I am very pleased to be able to announce a transition agency of this calibre,” Mr Hide said.

“Mr Ford is highly respected in his present leadership roles as Chief Executive of Watercare Services Ltd and Chair of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA). He has a strong understanding of Auckland governance and a proven record in managing complex situations and leading high performing teams.

To manage any perception of a conflict of interest,
Mr Ford is to resign from his present positions with Watercare and ARTA. ”

(My underlining).

You were tasked with heading the organisation setting up the $UPERCITY framework – particularly the seven Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) into which 75% of Auckland regional rates are to be paid – then you end up with arguably two of the ‘top jobs’ – CEO of Watercare and Chair of the ‘statutory entity’ – Auckland Transport?

Nice work!

How is this not a major ‘conflict of interest’?

Arguably, you have used your position as the Executive Chair of the Auckland Transition Agency (ATA) to help ‘feather your own nest’?

Is this not arguably ‘misuse of public office for private gain’ – a form of ‘corrupt practice’?

Particularly when the Directors of Watercare Services arguably ‘your mates,’ (as you have known a number of them for years as CEO of Watercare from 1994 – 2007), appoint you in an uncontested selection?

“This is the most demanding and important corporate assignment in New Zealand. That is why we’ve chosen someone of Mr Ford’s calibre and appointed him as Executive Chairman to ensure he has the powers to fulfil his role effectively.” (Rodney Hide, 22 May 2009)).

If you have such a ‘strong understanding of Auckland governance,’ are so ‘highly respected’, and of such ‘callibre’ – why is it that you appear to consider that the underpinning principles of the Local Government Act 2002 – ‘open, transparent and democratically accountable’ local government don’t apply to you?

WHY HAVE YOU NOT YET PROVIDED THE ANSWERS TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS?

(Please be reminded, you were first asked these questions, by email on 25 June 2010 and invited to reply in person to a Public Meeting held on 5 July 2010, calling for an investigation of the seven United Water New Zealand contracts.

You declined to attend the Public Meeting, and were then asked to provide answers to these questions in the form of an OIA reply on 2 July 2010.

These questions were still not answered.

Remember what you said about ‘transparency’, as published in the NZ Herald on 7 September 2010?

www.nzherald.co.nz/news/print.cfm?objectid=10671594

“Mark Ford, who will chair the mega-Auckland Transport CCO responsible for spending about $1.4 billion a year of ratepayers’ and taxpayers’ money, was relaxed at the possibility of public meetings being part of the statement of corporate intent between the council and the CCO.

“We have got to win over the confidence of the public.

There are various mechanisms – performance service, transparency and a whole series of things,” he said. ”

(My underlining).
Are these just empty ‘weasel words’?

There is, as you know, considerable public interest and concern about the ownership, operation and management, pricing and quality of Auckland water services.

If you do not answer these questions, then, in my considered opinion, you are quite simply, not ‘fit for duty’ because this proves by your practice – you are neither ‘open’ nor ‘transparent’.

I look forward to your prompt, (albeit belated) reply.

A) Information which explains why you, when CEO of Watercare Services Ltd, appointed known water privatiser, ex-Mayor of Papakura, David Hawkins, to the position of Corporate Liaison Manager for Watercare Services in 2000.

B) Information which confirms that you were aware of the Report of the Office of the Auditor General (OAG), in 1998, which was critical of a number of key aspects of the ‘Papakura franchise’, signed by David Hawkins as Mayor of Papakura in April 1997:

(These shortcomings were referred to in this recent ‘Regulatory Impact Statement’

www.dia.govt.nz/Pubforms.nsf/URL/Water_RIS…/Water_RIS_2010.doc

“REMOVING BARRIERS TO WATER INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2002 – REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT:

34. A potential risk is that councils lack expertise in the area of PPPs and other concession arrangements, and that developing such arrangements requires specialist skills. This was suggested in reports by the Auditor-General on the Papakura franchise agreement and the Wellington DBMO arrangement.[1]

35. In Papakura, for example, the Auditor-General noted that:

·the Council relied on limited internal and local expertise when setting up the agreement and it was not reviewed by an external expert;

·the franchise agreement inadequately documents the franchisee’s obligations to release particular information to the Council;

·the franchise agreement focused on performance indicators relating to price and quality, but indicators for customer service and asset management and development were not well defined; and

·there was a lack of agreement between the parties about how the condition of the infrastructure would be measured over the duration of the franchise – no baseline was established and an asset management plan was not undertaken.

[1] Controller and Auditor-General – 2006 report, as above; plus Report on Papakura District Council:

Water and Wastewater franchise, April 1998. ”

______________________________

C) Information which explains why you, when CEO of Watercare Services Ltd, appointed Graham Wood, to the position of General Manager Operations of Watercare Services,(in or about 2007), and what steps you took to:

1) Inform all elected representatives that made up the Watercare Shareholders Representative Group (SRG), of Graham Wood’s former position as the former Managing Director of United Water South Australia,

2) Inform the public of Graham Wood’s former position as the former Managing Director of United Water South Australia.

D) Information which explains the role played by David Hawkins and/or Graham Wood (if any) whilst working for Watercare in the securing of any NZ United Water contracts.

E) Information which explains why, on the Watercare Services Ltd website, when you were CEO, there was no section which covered the Watercare Shareholders Group, to make the following information publicly available: SRG meeting minutes; SRG reports ; information about which elected representatives were actually members of the SRG, and the like.

F) Disclosure of all / any interests (if any) you had or may have, either pecuniary or non-pecuniary with:

1) United Water;
2) Veolia Water,
3) Past or current members of the World Bank, including, but not limited to David Shand, the Head of the Rates Inquiry and one of the three Commissioners on the Royal commission of Inquiry into Auckland Regional Governance

G) Disclosure of all / any interests (if any) you had or may have, either pecuniary or non-pecuniary with Veolia Transport, who have the contract with ARTA (of which you were Chair since 2007) to operate train services on the Auckland Passenger Rail Network.

www.nzcid.org.nz/veoliatransport.html

VEOLIA TRANSPORT AUCKLAND

www.veoliatransport.co.nz

In 2004 Veolia Transport Auckland Limited was contracted to the Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA) to operate train services on the Auckland Passenger Rail Network. The contract has subsequently been extended through to 2014.

VEOLIA TRANSPORT (WORLDWIDE)

www.veolia.com/en/group/activities/transport-management.aspx

Veolia Transport, as a leading private operator of public transport, manage over 2.63 billion trips per year globally, thereby decreasing traffic congestion, combating climate change and avoiding over 4.1 million tons of Co2.

Veolia Transport is part of Veolia Environnement the world’s leading environmental services company.

www.beehive.govt.nz/release/mark+ford+lead+auckland+transition+agency

Mark Ford (Executive Chair)
CEO of Watercare Services Ltd since 1994 and Chairman of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority since 2007. Previous roles have included CEO of Auckland Regional Services Trust and CEO of NZ Forestry Corporation. )

______________________________

H) Information which confirms your position, as Executive Chair of the Auckland Transition Agency, on the request for a ‘full and thorough independent investigation of the pricing practices of private water company United Water’s seven contracts’ as requested in the following:

Petition 2008/60, presented by Su’a William Sio, on 9 December 2009:

“Requesting that the House of Representatives do not implement any legislative changes to the Local Government Act 2002 which would make it easier to privatise water services via changes to ‘contracting out’, and ‘Public Private Partnership’ (PPP) provisions, until a full and thorough independent investigation of the pricing practices of private water company United Water’s seven contracts in New Zealand has been undertaken.”

(This Petition is still an ‘Item of Business’ before the Local Government and Environment Select Committee – I checked on 8 October 2010.)
______________________________

FYI

Two ‘You Tube’ clips which explain the $UPERCITY
‘Organisational Flow Chart’:

The Auckland $UPERCITY ‘organisational flow chart’ visually shows in a way that words cannot describe, how this corporate takeover which you have helped to set up will work.

You know full well that this corporate structure cannot be made to serve the public and the public interest.

This information is now in the ‘public domain.’

part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H06yECiAsNM
part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhbrahaGi0Y

______________________________________________

Yours sincerely,

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

AUCKLAND MAYORAL CANDIDATE
PH (09) 846 9825

021 211 4 127

www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz

www.stopthesupercity.org.nz

www.stopprivatisation.org.nz

https://waterpressure.wordpress.com