Why ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’ Penny Bright is disclosing that the OAG is ‘undertaking preliminary inquiries’ into the 7 NZ United Water contracts
OPEN LETTER
Bruce Robertson
Assistant Auditor-General
Local Government
Dear Bruce,
In response to your request:
” …I would ask you not to disclose we are undertaking preliminary inquiries.”
“Why we ask for privacy?
At the preliminary stage it is still to be determined whether we will inquire and, if we do, how we will report. As part of the process we may or may not make contact with all parties concerned. If we decide not to, there is no reason to indicate to the parties we are not undertaking an inquiry – especially if we have not made direct contact with them. So it is on a pragmatic basis that we do not publicise preliminary inquires .
We are committed to transparency, but it is premature at this stage of our work to publicise what we are doing in relation to your request. It is on these grounds I would ask you not to disclose we are undertaking preliminary inquiries.
The inquiry work is the preserve of the Auditor-General. ”
I’m sorry Bruce, but I see a significant lack of consistency in the approach of the OAG regarding the disclosure of the ‘undertaking of preliminary inquiries’.
Please be reminded of the following articles which report none other than the Auditor-General herself, Auditor-General Lyn Provost, who:
“…said last week that she was looking into the matter but had yet to decide if an inquiry was needed.”
__________________________
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10694214
However Labour MP Pete Hodgson has been pushing for the Auditor-General to carry out an inquiry into Mrs Wong and her husband’s use of the travel perk.
Auditor-General Lyn Provost said last week that she was looking into the matter but had yet to decide if an inquiry was needed.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10693149
Auditor-General Lyn Provost has confirmed she is considering the latest information around Sammy Wong’s possible misuse of his wife Pansy’s Parliamentary travel perk, before deciding whether to investigate the matter.
________________________________
How is that not publicity about a ‘preliminary’ inquiry?
If the Auditor-General has the lawful power and authority to publicise the fact that the OAG is effectively conducting a preliminary inquiry – then why can’t I?
I am fully aware of my lawful rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 to ‘Freedom of Expression’:
_______________________
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 14. Freedom of expression
––-Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek,receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.
______________________________
– which is based upon:
Article 19 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
___________________________________________________
I acknowledge that it may be the OAG’s ‘inquiry’, but it was MY request for this inquiry, and I believe, in all fairness, that I have an equal ‘pragmatic’ right, to keep the public informed as to where this matter is at.
So Bruce, it is upon these grounds that I will be publicly disclosing that you are undertaking preliminary inquiries.
FYI – I have announced that I will be standing as a candidate in the Botany by-election, following the resignation of Pansy Wong, on an anti-corruption and pro-GENUINE transparency platform.
Yours sincerely,
Penny
Penny Bright
Media Spokesperson
Water Pressure Group
(New Zealand)
Judicially recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ for water and Auckland regional governance matters.
2010 Auckland Mayoral candidate.
“Anti-corruption campaigner”.
Attendee: Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference 2009
Attendee: Transparency International’s 14th IACC 2010
Ph (09) 846 9825
021 211 4 127
___________________________
Penny
Picking up on your request I clarify our approach, I would not the following:
Statutory provision
The basis on which we conduct inquires is generally under s 18 of the Public Audit Act 2001. The main section is s 18(1) – “The Auditor-General may inquire, either on request or on the Auditor-General’s own initiative, into any matter concerning a public entity’s use of it resources”. I would also refer you to our website which expands on the process we are using to consider your request. Part of that information includes the following:
What is an inquiry?
An inquiry may involve looking into financial, accountability, governance or conduct issues in a public entity. An inquiry will usually question whether the public entity:
- applied its resources effectively and efficiently and without waste,
- complied with its legal obligations,
- acted honestly and with integrity in its dealings, and
- managed its finances prudently.
The concerns may have been raised by a member of the public, a member of Parliament, another organisation, or the Auditor-General. However, we are not a complaints agency. No one can make the Auditor-General investigate a matter.
When a matter is referred to her, the Auditor-General decides whether to initiate an inquiry. We may decide not to look into it (for example, because we are not the appropriate authority to do so), we might refer it to our appointed auditor to consider during the next annual audit of the public entity, or we may consider the matter when we plan our performance audits.
If we decide to undertake an inquiry, we will also determine its scope. We might decide to look into only some of the concerns raised by the correspondent, or consider additional issues.
We then gather evidence and information, which we analyse to determine whether the entity has acted correctly and appropriately in the context of its legislative framework, applicable policies, and best practice.
We conduct our inquiries in private. However, we give all directly affected parties an opportunity to be heard, including the opportunity to comment on the factual accuracy and balance of our findings. We consider all such comments. However, because the Auditor-General is independent, we do not need the agreement or approval of the affected parties, or anyone else, before we confirm our findings.
The conclusions that we reach are our own.
Please note the last 2 paragraphs. An inquiry is that of the Auditor-General’s, not the correspondent.
On the basis there are grounds for us to inquire (which essentially is what the preliminary inquiry is about) we are looking to review the public entitles use/protection of its resources. We are not investigating a private sector organisation – in the case of your inquiry, United Water itself. Our website page on inquiries also notes (for your advice I also repeat the information in relation to policy decisions and the judicial function):
Private entities
The Auditor-General can only inquire into the actions of public entities (see section 5 of the Public Audit Act 2001). We cannot inquire into private organisations, including organisations which may have received funding from a public entity. However, we can look at the activities of a public entity in contracting with or directly funding a private entity, and the manner in which the public entity has monitored the private entity’s use of public funds.
Policy decisions
The Auditor-General does not have any authority to question matters of government or local authority policy. Making policy decisions is a job for elected representatives. For example, we would not inquire into a decision by the Government or a local authority to acquire or dispose of a particular asset. We could, however, consider the extent to which the public entity had implemented that decision in accordance with the applicable policy.
Judicial function
The Auditor-General does not have a judicial function, so we cannot make findings on whether an entity has acted lawfully or whether an individual is culpable for a particular action. The most we can do is express an opinion. We cannot overturn an entity’s decisions or actions. That is for the courts through the judicial review process. We also cannot provide any redress or remedies in respect of particular concerns, or direct a public entity to act on our findings or recommendations.
Why we ask for privacy?
At the preliminary stage it is still to be determined whether we will inquire and, if we do, how we will report. As part of the process we may or may not make contact with all parties concerned. If we decide not to, there is no reason to indicate to the parties we are not undertaking an inquiry – especially if we have not made direct contact with them. So it is on a pragmatic basis that we do not publicise preliminary inquires .
We are committed to transparency, but it is premature at this stage of our work to publicise what we are doing in relation to your request. It is on these grounds I would ask you not to disclose we are undertaking preliminary inquiries. The inquiry work is the preserve of the Auditor-General.
I have indicated to you previously that we will let you know the outcome of our preliminary work. I have also indicated that this will not be until into the New Year.
Regards
Bruce Robertson
Bruce Robertson
Assistant Auditor-General, Local Government
Office of the Auditor-General, Te Mana Arotake
100 Molesworth Street, Thorndon, Wellington 6011
PO Box 3928, Wellington 6140
DDI: +64 4 917 1601; Mobile +64 021 2228 451
This email, and any attachments to it, contain confidential information and may be legally privileged. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete it. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, disclose, copy, or interfere with this material. We use standard virus-checking software but accept no responsibility for viruses or anything similar in this email or any attachment.
___________________________________________________
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
18 November 2010
URGENT!
‘OPEN LETTER’ REQUEST FOR URGENT INTERVENTION/INVESTIGATION BY AUDITOR-GENERAL INTO PRICING OF 7 UNITED WATER NZ CONTRACTS
NZ Auditor-General
Lynne Provost
Dear Auditor-General,
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1011/S00373/house-rises-while-debating-local-government-bill.htm
House Rises While Debating Local Government Bill
Thursday, 18 November 2010, 12:09 am
Article: ParliamentToday.co.nz
House Rises While Debating Local Government Bill
The Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill passed its second reading by 64 votes to 56 and MPs had just started the committee stage debate when the House rose at midnight.
It will resume tomorrow at 9am.
***
ParliamentToday.co.nz is a breaking news source for New Zealand parliamentary business featuring broadcast daily news reports on Parliamentary Business.”
______________________________
If Prime Minister John Key does not act today to ensure that ‘due diligence’ is applied and that 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, are ‘stayed’ 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, I am formally requesting your urgent intervention to ensure that his happens.
Yours sincerely,
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
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com
‘Open Letter to New Zealand Prime Minister John Key,
Dear Prime Minister,
I have just come back from the Transparency International 14th ‘International Anti-Corruption Conference in Bangkok Thailand, attended by over 1200 anti-corruption delegates from all over the world.
In my considered opinion it is a form of ‘wilful blindness’ bordering on a form of ‘corrupt practice’ to force through legislation pushing a privatisation model which may be based on a ‘rort and a fraud’ without investigating legitimate concerns which have been put before Parliament in a proper way.
Petition of Penelope Mary Bright and 171 others
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.
| Petition number: | 2008/60 |
|---|---|
| Presented by: | Su’a William Sio |
| Date presented: | 9 December 2009 |
| Referred to: | Local Government and Environment Committee |
(Evidence supporting this petition at the end of this email)
NATIONAL/ACT GOVT ARE RAILROADING THROUGH WATER PRIVATISATION LEGISLATION!!
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1011/S00373/house-rises-while-debating-local-government-bill.htm
House Rises While Debating Local Government Bill
Thursday, 18 November 2010, 12:09 am
Article: ParliamentToday.co.nz
House Rises While Debating Local Government Bill
The Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill passed its second reading by 64 votes to 56 and MPs had just started the committee stage debate when the House rose at midnight.
It will resume tomorrow at 9am.
***
ParliamentToday.co.nz is a breaking news source for New Zealand parliamentary business featuring broadcast daily news reports on Parliamentary Business.
______________________________
A PROTEST IS BEING HELD OUTSIDE PAPAKURA UNITED WATER!
116 Great South Rd
Papakura
THURSDAY 18 NOVEMBER
9AM – 12NOON
THE INTENTION OF THIS LEGISLATION IS TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR WATER MULTINATIONALS (LIKE UNITED WATER- 100% OWNED BY VEOLIA – THE BIGGEST PRIVATE WATER COMPANY IN THE WORLD) TO OPERATE AND MANAGE OUR WATER SERVICES FOR PRIVATE PROFIT.
United Water – have lost the South Australian contract!
So – why are we making it easier for United Water in NZ here in NZ – if their 7 contracts may be based on dodgy and misrepresented pricing?
This is URGENT because the Bill to extend private water contracts to 35 years is back before Parliament , has had its 2nd reading – while my petition calling for an urgent investigation into the 7 NZ United Water contracts is just sitting there as an ‘Item of Business’ before the Local Government and Environment Select Committee.
Where is the ‘due diligence’, ‘prudent stewardship’and ‘fiscal responsibility’ in ignoring EVIDENCE supporting the call for an urgent inquiry into the 7 United Water NZ contracts?
Is this not a form of ‘wilful blindness’ bordering on a form of ‘corrupt practice’ to force through legislation pushing a model which may be based on a ‘rort and a fraud’ without investigating these legitimate concerns which have been put before Parliament in a proper way?
This petition has been tabled as an ‘Item of Business’ for nearly a year!
Did United Water knowingly misrepresent their pricing here in NZ by loading corporate overhead costs from NZ contracts on to South Australian United Water customers?
Think it is politically significant – that while here it’s being made easier for United Water to get (longer) contracts in NZ – the South Australians are effectively ‘ booting’ them out.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/24/2935983.htm
(This is a ‘BOOT’ scheme I DO agree with. )
I contacted South Australia United Water Communications Officer Edwina Chapman (0061 8 8301 2700) and she advised me that the findings of the ‘Independent Expert’ who is investigating the United Water South Australia contract are “not determined”.
(I rang her on Friday 5 November 2010)
But in the meantime – the United Water South Australia contract is NOT being renewed.
PLEASE EXPLAIN TO THE NEW ZEALAND PEOPLE, PRIME MINISTER, WHY, ‘ON YOUR WATCH’ ‘DUE DILIGENCE’ IS NOT BEING EXERCISED AND WHY THERE HAS BEEN NO INVESTIGATION YET INTO THE SEVEN NZ UNITED WATER CONTRACTS.
IF PARLIAMENT IS NOT GOING TO EXERCISE ‘DUE DILIGENCE’ – THEN PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THE AUDITOR-GENERAL (OAG) WILL BE ASKED TO INVESTIGATE THE 7 UNITED WATER NZ CONTRACTS.
THE MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAS ALREADY ADVISED THAT THE OAG IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE BODY TO CARRY OUT THIS INVESTIGATION:
3) REPLY FROM THE MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT RODNEY HIDE DATED
3 NOVEMBER 2010:
_________________________________________________________________
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT IF ‘DUE DILIGENCE’ IS NOT CARRIED OUT BY EITHER THE NZ PARLIAMENT OR THE OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR-GENERAL, I AM GOING TO FORMALLY REQUEST THAT TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL CONDUCT AN URGENT REVIEW OF NEW ZEALAND’S ‘CORRUPTION PERCEPTION INDEX’ STATUS.
(Currently ‘first-equal’ with Singapore and Denmark).
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
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ENVIRONMENT SELECT COMMITTEE – EVIDENCE SUPPORTING :
Petition 2008/60 of Penelope Mary Bright and 171 others, presented by Su’a William Sio, on 9 December 2009 – referred to the Local Government and Environment Select Committee.
“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.”
1)COPY OF THE ‘STATEMENT OF CLAIM’ ,( sawater sclaim.pdf ) FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF, SA WATER CORPORATION, BY THE CROWN SOLICITOR FOR THE STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :
SA WATER CORPORATION v UNITED WATER INTERNATIONAL PTY ACN 069471334 in the Supreme Court of South Australia.
In brief, UNITED WATER INTERNATIONAL PTY, is being sued by SA WATER CORPORATION, for alleged ‘breach of contract’, and ‘misleading and deceptive conduct’, for failing to disclose, when calculating its profit on ‘Lump Sum Charges’, all its corporate overhead costs for United Water’s other operations (including in New Zealand and Ballarat).
2) LETTER TO THE MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT RODNEY HIDE (DATED 29 SEPTEMBER 2009), REQUESTING HE ADVISE WHICH IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE BODY/AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE EACH OF THE SEVEN UNITED WATER NEW ZEALAND CONTRACTS IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THEY WERE NOT BASED ON FRAUDULENT AND MISREPRESENTED PRICING:
“29 September 2009
OPEN LETTER TO THE MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT RODNEY HIDE –
RE: INVESTIGATION OF NZ UNITED WATER CONTRACTS
Dear Minister,
Attached to this email is a copy of the ‘Statement of Claim’, filed on behalf of the Plaintiff, SA Water Corporation, by the Crown Solicitor for the State of South Australia, in the matter between:
SA WATER CORPORATION v UNITED WATER INTERNATIONAL PTY ACN 069471334 in the Supreme Court of South Australia.
In brief, UNITED WATER INTERNATIONAL PTY, is being sued by SA WATER CORPORATION, for alleged ‘breach of contract’, and ‘misleading and deceptive conduct’, for failing to disclose, when calculating its profit on ‘Lump Sum Charges’, all its corporate overhead costs for United Water’s other operations (including in New Zealand and Ballarat).
This is allegedly in breach of clauses 8 and 14 of the Contract and clause 2(c) of Schedule E to the Contract (which only entitle United Water to charge for costs incurred by it in rendering the Services to SA Water.
These are significant and serious charges.
“The remedies sought are:
1) A order setting aside the 2003 Contract under Section 87 of the Trade Practices Act, 1974 (Cth) and Section 85 of the Fair Trading Act (SA) and for misrepresentation.
2) Damages for breach of Contract.
3.Damages pursuant to Section 82 of the Trade Practices Act, 1974 (Cth).
4) Damages pursuant to Section 84 of the Fair Trading Act, 1987 (SA).
5) Damages pursuant to Section 7 of the Misrepresentation Act, 1972 (SA).
6) Further or in the alternative, orders as the Court think appropriate pursuant to Section 87 of Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and Section 85 of the Fair Trading Act, 1987 (SA) to compensate SA Water for the loss and damage sufered by reason of the conduct of United Water in contravention of Section 52 of Trade Practices Act, 1974 (Cth) and Section 56 of the Fair Trading Act, 1987 (SA).
7. Interest.
8. Costs.
9. Further or other relief as the Court thinks fit.”
A) Please advise as Minister of Local Government, which is the most appropriate body/authority to investigate:
1) Each of the following United Water contracts in order to establish that they were not based on fraudulent and misrepresented pricing, which, as I understand it, would, if proven, be grounds for the ‘setting aside’ of the following United Water New Zealand contracts.
a) Papakura Concession
b) Ruapehu Operations and Maintenance
c) Thames Coromandel Operations and Maintenance
d) Wellington Wastewater Treatment Plants
e) Waitomo Operations and Maintenance
f) Franklin Operations and Maintenance
g) Queenstown Operations and Maintenance
2) The role played, (if any) by employees of Watercare Services Ltd, in the securing of these United Water New Zealand contracts, particularly that of the ex-Mayor of Papakura District Council, Mr David Hawkins, now ‘Corporate Liaison Manager’ for Watercare Services, (currently seconded to work for the Auckland Transition Agency),who played a significant role in the establishing of the United Water (Papakura) contract in 1997.
Yours sincerely,
Penny Bright
Media Spokesperson
Water Pressure Group
Judicially recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ for Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters.
Ph (09) 846 9825
021 211 4 127
(waterpressure@gmail.com)
______________________________
3) REPLY FROM THE MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT RODNEY HIDE DATED
3 NOVEMBER 2010:
4) OPEN LETTER/OIA REQUEST TO ALL THE FOLLOWING TWENTY NATIONAL PARTY CABINET MINISTERS WHO SUPPORT WATER PRIVATISATION, AS PER THE FOLLOWING CABINET DECISIONS OF 27 OCTOBER 2009:
- extend the 15-year limit on water services contracts and joint arrangements with the private sector to 35 years, which makes these arrangements more workable
- allow water services arrangements to include BOOT schemes by allowing ownership of infrastructure by the private sector during the contract period
- repeal the provisions that require councils entering into a contract or joint arrangement with the private sector to retain control over the management of water services (control over pricing and policy to be retained by councils).”
| Penny Bright <waterpressure@gmail.com> | Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 3:21 PM |
|
Cc: j.carter@ministers.govt.nz, chris.auchinvole@parliament.govt.nz, cam.calder@national.org.nz, david.garrett@parliament.govt.nz, george.hawkins@parliament.govt.nz, shane.jones@parliament.govt.nz, rahui.katene@parliament.govt.nz, nikki.kaye@parliament.govt.nz, sue.kedgley@parliament.govt.nz, phil.twyford@parliament.govt.nz, louise.upston@parliament.govt.nz, Nicky Hager <nicky@paradise.net.nz>, jackie.blue@parliament.govt.nz, john.boscawen@parliament.govt.nz, Sue Bradford <sue.bradford@parliament.govt.nz>, simon.bridges@parliament.govt.nz, Hone Harawira <hone.harawira@parliament.govt.nz>, Tau Henare <tau.henare@parliament.govt.nz>, sua.william.sio@parliament.govt.nz, Russel Norman <russel.norman@parliament.govt.nz>, jeanette.fitzsimons@parliament.govt.nz, metiria.turei@parliament.govt.nz, j.collins@ministers.govt.nz, s.power@ministers.govt.nz, c.finlayson@ministers.govt.nz, w.mapp@ministers.govt.nz, j.key@ministers.govt.nz, b.english@ministers.govt.nz, Carol Beaumont <carol.beaumont@parliament.govt.nz>, jim.anderton@parliament.govt.nz, bill.burrill@arc.govt.nz, ccarter@calaw.co.nz, christine.rose@arc.govt.nz, christine@rankingroup.co.nz, dianne.glenn@arc.govt.nz, jancolin@ihug.co.nz, joel.cayford@arc.govt.nz, judith.bassett@xtra.co.nz, otunnz@nznet.gen.nz, s_coney@xtra.co.nz, Mike Lee <mike.lee@arc.govt.nz>, cr.baguley@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.bhatnagar@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.christian@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.donnelly@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.easte@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.goldsmith@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.hay@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.lotu-iiga@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.millar@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.moyle@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.raffills@aucklandcity.govt.nz, mayor@aucklandcity.govt.nz, “Cr Armstrong, Douglas” <cr.armstrong@aucklandcity.govt.nz>, “Cr Boyle, Leila” <cr.boyle@aucklandcity.govt.nz>, “Cr Casey, Cathy” <cr.casey@aucklandcity.govt.nz>, “Cr Fryer, Glenda” <cr.fryer@aucklandcity.govt.nz>, “Cr Mulholland, Graeme” <cr.mulholland@aucklandcity.govt.nz>, “Cr Northey, Richard” <cr.northey@aucklandcity.govt.nz>, “Cr Roche, Denise” <cr.roche@aucklandcity.govt.nz>, arthur.anae@xtra.co.nz, blkalf@xtra.co.nz, botany@michaelwilliams.co.nz, brown@manukau.govt.nz, d.collings@xtra.co.nz, d.newman@orcon.net.nz, dick.quax@xtra.co.nz, gtroup@xtra.co.nz, hugh_henrygraham@yahoo.com, info@stirrups.co.nz, jross@jami-leeross.com, maggiewb@clear.net.nz, mayor@manukau.govt.nz, sharonstewart@xtra.co.nz, sw.sio@xtra.co.nz, thebrowns@colbar.co.nz, Bob Wichman <bobwichman@woosh.co.nz>, Sylvia Taylor <sylviataylor@xtra.co.nz>, andrew.williams@northshorecity.govt.nz, ann.hartley@northshorecity.govt.nz, callum.blair@northshorecity.govt.nz, chris.darby@northshorecity.govt.nz, dianne.hale@northshorecity.govt.nz, grantgillon@ihug.co.nz, heather.brown@northshorecity.govt.nz, jan.o’connor@northshorecity.govt.nz, joy.brett@northshorecity.govt.nz, ken.mckay@northshorecity.govt.nz, kevin.schwass@northshorecity.govt.nz, lisa.whyte@northshorecity.govt.nz, margaret.miles@northshorecity.govt.nz, parfitt.associates@xtra.co.nz, Tony Holman <tony.holman@northshorecity.govt.nz>, Vivienne Keohane <vivienne.keohane@northshorecity.govt.nz>, brentc@win.co.nz, cconroy@xtra.co.nz, cpenrose@papakura.govt.nz, katrinapiggott@yahoo.com, kiwisuperscope@xtra.co.nz, owenpringle@xtra.co.nz, p.j.jones@xtra.co.nz, pcgt.goldsmith@xtra.co.nz, sattl@xtra.co.nz, dh.parker@xtra.co.nz, gaye.harding@rodney.govt.nz, grevwalker@clear.net.nz, john.kirikiri@rodney.govt.nz, june.turner@rodney.govt.nz, michael.goudie@gmail.com, pdel@xtra.co.nz, penny.webster@rodney.govt.nz, powellg@xtra.co.nz, ross.craig@rodney.govt.nz, suzanne.weld@rodney.govt.nz, zane.taylor@rodney.govt.nz, Wayne Walker <wayne@waynewalker.co.nz>, bruce.robertson@oag.govt.nz, phillippa.smith@oag.govt.nz, tinz@paradise.net.nz, Transparency International <ti@transparency.org>, Rosslyn Noonan <rosslynn@hrc.co.nz>, Sylvia Bell <sylviab@hrc.co.nz>, michaelW@hrc.co.nz, emma.miles@police.govt.nz, “andrew.coster” <Andrew.Coster@police.govt.nz>, “mike.webb” <Mike.Webb@police.govt.nz>, “Bernard.Orsman@nzherald.co.nz” <bernard.orsman@nzherald.co.nz>, bernard.hickey@interest.co.nz, Fran O’Sullivan <fran.osullivan@xtra.co.nz>, audrey.young@nzherald.co.nz, john.armstrong@nzherald.co.nz, phil kitchin <phil.kitchin@dompost.co.nz>, philt@times.co.nz, imogen.neale@snl.co.nz, Ian Wishart <ian@investigatemagazine.com>, editor <editor@uncensored.co.nz>, willie@newstalkzb.co.nz, jtamihere@radiolive.co.nz, keith@truewines.co.nz, keith.locke@parliament.govt.nz, janderson@nbr.co.nz, “Anthony Hubbard (SUN)” <anthony.hubbard@star-times.co.nz>
|
|
“………………………………
Your Request Numbered 4
4) Please provide all/any information which confirms that you, as a Cabinet Minister:
(a) Were made aware of the fact that private water company United Water International Pty, which currently has seven contracts with Councils in New Zealand, is being sued by the Crown Solicitor for the State of South Australia…
in the Supreme Court of South Australia.
The only information identified as coming within the scope of this part of your request is the email you sent to the Prime Minister’s email address, the content of which you copied into your request.
(b) and that you as a Cabinet Minister, applied due diligence and gave due consideration to this fact before arriving at the above-mentioned Cabinet decision to facilitate privatisation of water services in New Zealand.
I can assure you that the Prime Minister is extremely diligent and gives due consideration to every matter considered by Cabinet. ”
___________________________
Your Requests Numbered 1-3
1) All/any information upon which you are relying which confirms how these proposed legislative changes to facilitate water privatisation serve the ‘public interest’ of the majority of citizens and ratepayers as opposed to the ‘private interests’ of those who own/operate and/ or manage the water services ‘contracting companies’ – (including water multinationals such as Veolia who own United Water).
2) All.any information upon which you are relying which provides the conclusive EVIDENCE that such legislative changes to facilitate water privatisation, as proposed, including the PPP/BOOT model are in fact more ‘effective’ and ‘efficient’ delivery methods for water services.
3) All/any information upon which you are relying which confirms that these proposed legislative changes to facilitate water privatisation are being ‘triggered’ by ratepayers and residents, as opposed to privately-owned water services providers, and those whose role it is to facilitate ‘Public Private partnerships for water services. ie WHO WANTS and is pushing for the privatisation of New Zealand water services?
Information relating to water infrastructure regulation in the Local Government Act was provided to Cabinet by the Minister of Local Gvoernment. These first three questions appear to be more closely connected to the responsibilities of the Minister of Local Government. Accordingly, I am transferring yout request to the Minister’s Office under section 14 of the Official Information Act.
6) REPLY FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT MINISTER RODNEY HIDE
DATED 10 DECEMBER 2009
WPG WATER PRIVATISATION CABINET OIAs Rodney Hide 10 Dec 2009.pdf 83K
10 December 2009
Official Information Act request
I refer to your requests of 6 November 2009 to the Prime Minister, Hon Simon Power, Hon Dr Nick Smith and hon David Carter for information relating to proposed changes to aspects of the local Government Act 2002 and water infrastructure. Questions one, two and three of these requests have been transferred to me, udner section 14 of the Official Information and Meetings Act 1982 (the Act), as these questions relate more closely to my responsibilities as Minister of Local Government.
I understand that other Ministers to whom you addressed your request have written to you directly advising you that as the Prime Minister has already transferred questions one to three to me, there does not appear to be any advantage to you in making additional transfers.
You have asked for the following information:
- All/any information upon which you are relying which confirms how these proposed legislative changes to facilitate water privatisation serve the ‘public interest’ of the majority of citizens and ratepayers as opposed to the ‘private interests’ of those who own/operate and/ or manage the water services ‘contracting companies’ – (including water multinationals such as Veolia who own United Water).
- All.any information upon which you are relying which provides the conclusive EVIDENCE that such legislative changes to facilitate water privatisation, as proposed, including the PPP/BOOT model are in fact more ‘effective’ and ‘efficient’ delivery methods for water services.
- All/any information upon which you are relying which confirms that these proposed legislative changes to facilitate water privatisation are being ‘triggered’ by ratepayers and residents, as opposed to privately-owned water services providers, and those whose role it is to facilitate ‘Public Private partnerships for water services. ie WHO WANTS and is pushing for the privatisation of New Zealand water services?
I advise you that the proposed legislative changes do not facilitate water privatisation. Therefore, no information relating to these parts of your request has been identified.
I am, accordingly declining these parts of your request under section 18(e) of the Act because the information requested does not exist.
…………….”
7) DEFINITION OF WATER PRIVATISATION WHICH CONFIRM THAT IT COVERS BOTH THE OPERATION/MANAGEMENT OF WATER SERVICES ASSETS AS WELL AS ‘OWNERSHIP.”
http://www.ppiaf.org/documents/e-book_PSP_Impact_Electricity_Water_Distribution.pdf
Does Private Sector Participation Improve Performance in Electricity
and Water Distribution?
Katharina Gassner
Pg 3
“Differentiation by Contract Type
Much past research has concentrated on “pure privatization”—permanent
private control over business assets and associated rights.
But because of natural monopoly features and social and political considerations, full divestiture of assets is rare in electricity and especially so in water and sanitation.
The study therefore examines the broad range of legal arrangements for involving the private sector—management and lease contracts, concessions, and partial as well as full divestitures—using the transfer of operating rights to determine whether a utility is privately operated.
The results are differentiated by type of contract. The strength of the PSP
impact is expected to vary by contract type, and the predominant type differs
by sector: divestitures (full and partial) account for most PSP cases in electricity
distribution, and concessions account for most in water and sanitation.”
WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING FROM THE LONG-TERM LEASE OF THE PIPES
THE PUBLIC HAVE ALREADY PAID FOR?
Back to the public or the private ‘operators’?
Follow the income stream………………
Who ‘owns’ the ‘own’ part of the BOOT scheme?
(BOOT – “Build Own Operate Transfer”)
8) OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT REQUESTS TO SEVEN NEW ZEALAND COUNCILS WHO HAVE UNITED WATER CONTRACTS:
a) Papakura Concession
b) Ruapehu Operations and Maintenance
c) Thames Coromandel Operations and Maintenance
d) Wellington Wastewater Treatment Plantse) Waitomo Operations and Maintenance
f) Franklin Operations and Maintenance
g) Queenstown Operations and Maintenance
On 27 April 2010, I sent essentially the same OIA request to each of the above-mentioned Councils with United Water contracts.
Following is the letter sent to Ruapehu District Council:
“27 April 2010
Ruapehu District Council
CEO
David Hammond
URGENT’ OPEN LETTER/ OIA REQUEST TO THE CEO OF THE WAITOMO DISTRICT COUNCIL
RE: UNITED WATER CONTRACT:
Dear David,
Under the ‘urgency’ provisions of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 , I require this information by Tuesday 4 May 2010 5pm.
This is because I have been asked to give evidence by the Local Government and Environment Select Committee by 7 May 2010 in support of the following petition:
CEO
David Hammond
RE: UNITED WATER CONTRACT:
Petition 2008/60 of Penelope Mary Bright and 171 others, presented by Su’a William Sio, on 9 December 2009 – referred to the Local Government and Environment Select Committee.
“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.”
______________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Our services
Veolia Water operates more than 4,400 contracts in 64 countries, providing water and wastewater services to more than 139 million people.
Founded more than 150 years ago in France and originally known as Compagnie Générale des Eaux, Veolia Water is the worldwide leader in water services, employing more than 93,000 people.
Veolia Water’s expertise covers each stage of water cycle management including:
- Managing the operations and maintenance of water and wastewater services as outsourced by public authorities and industry
-
Designing, building and supplying water equipment, systems and treatment facilities
Veolia Water also supports sustainable development to conserve water resources and provides the capabilities to establish alternative water sources.
Veolia Water is the water division of the world leader in environmental services, Veolia Environnement – which offers solutions in waste management, energy and transport.
______________________________________________________________
PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
1) Copies of the ‘public advertisments’ (if any) for the ‘Request For Tender’, prior to the awarding of this contract to United Water, which confirm that the ‘tender process’ was open.
2) Copies of the ‘request for tender’ from the Ruapehu District Council to potential contractors/suppliers, which confirm that the ‘tender process’ was open to other contractors than just United Water.
3) Copies of the ‘Terms of tender’.
4) Information which confirms the names and positions of those who drew up the tender document (s).
5) Information which confirms the names and positions of those who evaluated the tenders.
6) Documentation which explained the roles and responsibilities of each tender evaluation committee member at that time.
7) Documentation which explained the roles and responsibilities of the tender evaluation committee convenor at that time.
8) Information which confirms the documenting of a ‘Register of Interests’ (or the like), for those involved in drawing up the tender document(s), and those involved in evaluating and awarding the tender(s), in order to establish that there were no ‘conflicts of interest’.
9) A copy of the ‘Evaluation Matrix’, (or equivalent document), including an explanation of how the ‘tenders’ were scored.
10) A copy of the information which outlines the processes involved in signing the Evaluation Matrix’, (or equivalent document).
11) A copy of the signed Evaluation Matrix’, (or equivalent document.
12) A copy of the information which outlines the processes involved in preparing report recommending the preferred tender.
13) A copy of the report recommending the preferred tender.
14) A copy of the ‘Agreement and contract’.
15) A copy of the ‘Terms of contract’.
16) Copies of any subsequent contract variations
17) Copies of full financial statements i.e. Profit & Loss and Balance Sheet from United Water, on an annual basis, since the awarding of this contract.
18) All information (if any) pertaining to all/any ‘lobbying’ by any person or any agent acting for United Water/Veolia in order to assist their bid for this contract, including but not limited to: meeting minutes/reports/ letters/emails/recorded telephone conversations.
19) All information (if any) pertaining to all/any ‘lobbying’, by any person or any agent of Watercare Services Ltd, in particular, but not limited to Mark Ford, David Hawkins, or Graham Wood, in order to assist United Water /Veolia in their bid for this contract.
20) Copies of any/all audit documents regarding the tendering process and awarding of this contract to United Water by:
a) Council’s internal auditing body.
b) The Office of the Auditor General.
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 https://waterpressure.wordpress.com
___________________________________________________________________
9) RESPONSES FROM NEW COUNCILS WITH UNITED WATER CONTRACTS:
(I can provide this evidence for the Select Committee.)
a) Papakura Concession
Have provided electronic copies of the original contract and variations.
b) Ruapehu Operations and Maintenance
Have provided over 600 hard copy pages of documentation, including evidence that United Water put in the cheapest tender and won the contract in 2002.
(Did United Water misrepresent their pricing in order to win this contract?)
c) Thames Coromandel Operations and Maintenance
Have yet to provide any information – they want to charge for information.
d) Wellington Wastewater Treatment Plants
Have provided electronic copies of information.
e) Waitomo Operations and Maintenance
Have yet to provide any information – want to charge for information.
f) Franklin Operations and Maintenance
Have yet to provide any information.
g) Queenstown Operations and Maintenance
Have provided electronic copies of some information relating to tendering for contract.
10) UPDATE FROM AUSTRALIA REGARDING DEVELOPMENTS WITH UNITED WATER SOUTH AUSTRALIA COURT CASE.
I contacted a South Australian Reporter from ‘The Australian’ who emailed me the following copy of this article which he wrote:
“Hi Penny, as discussed, latest article in the local paper here. My details are below. Please email me details of your case. Cheers
| The Advertiser, Edition 1 – State | THU 08 APR 2010, Page 020 |
<h
…
[Message clipped] View entire message
No comments yet.
-
Archives
- July 2011 (5)
- June 2011 (108)
- May 2011 (107)
- April 2011 (110)
- March 2011 (53)
- February 2011 (25)
- January 2011 (7)
- December 2010 (4)
- November 2010 (3)
- October 2010 (13)
- September 2010 (12)
- August 2010 (24)
-
Categories
- 9/11 TRUTH
- Anti-GE
- Auckland Mayoral campaign
- Botany By-election 2011
- Centre for Public Integrity
- CLG REPORT:
- Fighting corruption in NZ
- Fighting corruption internationally
- Fighting water privatisation in NZ
- Howick by-election campaign
- Human rights
- i watch news (Centre for Public Integrity)
- Internationally significant information
- Jane Burgermeister Report
- Metrowater
- Stop the $uper City
- Transparency in Govt spending
- TRUTHOUT
- Uncategorized
- VINCE SIEMER REPORT
- WORLD WATER WARRIORS
- YOU TUBE: John Clarke and Bryan Dawe
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
The Watchdog 
Leave a Reply