“Why won’t Mark Ford explain why he picked known water privatisers as Watercare Executive staff?” asks Auckland Mayoral candidate Penny Bright.
8 September 2010
“Why won’t Mark Ford explain why, on HIS watch, he picked known water privatisers as key Watercare Executive staff, and openly answer questions about United Water and Veolia contracts?” asks Auckland Mayoral candidate Penny Bright.
“I, for one, based on Mark Ford’s track record, have NO confidence in his empty ‘weasel words’ words about ‘transparency’.
Water privatisation is a HUGE issue in this Auckland ‘$UPERCITY’ election. The voting public have a right to know the answers to questions I publicly asked Mark Ford over two months ago.”
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. ”
………………………………………………..
“Mr Hawkins said he had not been aware of any disquiet about anything Watercare had done over its long history, saying it was an example of how a CCO could work efficiently along commercial lines to deliver a public service.”
“Upon which planet has the Chair of Watercare Services – businessman Graeme Hawkins – been living?” asks Auckland Mayoral candidate Penny Bright.
Perhaps Mr Hawkins just leads a VERY sheltered life – and has somehow been shielded from the following matters, which show considerable ‘disquiet’ exists about Watercare operations and management.
But if Mr Hawkins is so ‘out-of-touch’ about concerns that have been publicly raised about the company he chairs – then – perhaps his ‘fitness for duty’, as Chair of the Board for Water Services is arguably questionable?
WATERCARE’S PAST AND CURRENT ACTIONS AND PRACTICES WHICH CAUSE ME, AS A JUDICIALLY RECOGNISED ‘PUBLIC WATCHDOG’ ON METROWATER, WATER AND AUCKLAND REGIONAL GOVERNANCE MATTERS –
CONSIDERABLE ‘DISQUIET’.
A) TRANSPARENCY:
1) Why aren’t the minutes of meetings of Watercare Services Ltd governing body – the Watercare Shareholders’ Group (SRG) publicly available on Watercare’s website? Where’s the ‘transparency’?
2) Who has really been in charge of Watercare Services Ltd?
The elected representatives who make up Watercare Shareholders’ Group (SRG) – or unelected Watercare Executive staff and CEO?
3)Why hasn’t former Watercare CEO, Mark Ford, replied to the following questions arising from his appointment of key water privatisers, namely – David Hawkins and Graham Wood, to strategic positions as ‘Executive’ Watercare staff members?
4) Does the Chair of Watercare Services – businessman Graeme Hawkins know the answers to these following questions?
If not – WHY NOT?
If he knows – why don’t the public?
________________________________________
2 July 2010
Executive Chair
Auckland Transition Agency (ATA)
Mark Ford
Dear Mark,
I am very sorry that you have declined to accept the invitation to attend the Public Meeting to be held on Monday 5 July 2010, from 7.30 – 9.30pm at the Freemans Bay Community Centre, calling for an investigation of the 7 United Water New Zealand contracts.
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:06 PM, info@ata wrote:
“Thank you for your invitation which is declined.”
Mark, you may recall that I requested that if you were unable for any reason, to accept the invitation to attend the Public Meeting to be held on Monday 5 July 2010, from 7.30 – 9.30pm
at the Freemans Bay Community Centre, calling for an investigation of the 7 United Water New Zealand contracts, could you please provide the following information by 5pm Friday 2 July 2010: (which, to date, at 5.30pm 2 July 2010, you have not.)
As I would still like to have this information in writing, in order to make it available to the public and media at the above-mentioned Public Meeting, can you please confirm that you will have this OIA request completed by 12 noon Monday 5 July 2010.
If not – why not?
Thank you in anticipation of your prompt reply to this request.
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
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com
_______________________________________
25 June 2010
Executive Chair
Auckland Transition Agency (ATA)
Mark Ford
OPEN LETTER/OIA REQUEST TO MARK FORD, EXECUTIVE CHAIR OF THE AUCKLAND TRANSITION AUTHORITY (ATA)
Dear Mark,
Just in case you are unable for any reason to accept the invitation to attend the Public Meeting to be held on Monday 5 July 2010, from 7.30 – 9.30pm at the Freemans Bay Community Centre, calling for an investigation of the 7 United Water New Zealand contracts, can you please provide the following information by 5pm Friday 2 July 2010:
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
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.”
Of course, the preferred option would be for you, as Executive Chair of the Auckland Transition Agency (ATA) to front this public meeting in person, but just in case you are unable to do so, I would like to have this information in writing to make it available to the public and media.
Thanks.
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
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com
______________________________
PS! There are a LOT more areas of ‘disquiet’ regarding Watercare Services actions, operations and management – which in my considered opinion, prove they, quite simply are NOT to be trusted.
This is just the start……..
RESPONSE FROM AUCKLAND MAYORAL CANDIDATE PENNY BRIGHT TO WAITAKERE HOUSING CALL TO ACTION
(Please note that I have discussed your questions with State Housing Advocate Sue Henry, whose knowledge and understanding arising from her untiring work over the years on housing and related issues, I have enormous respect.)
My replies are as follows:
INCREASED HOUSING PROVISION:
1) First – I believe we need to head off the proposed housing decrease through giving private sector organisations huge chunks of existing housing stock and to ban any sale of existing state housing stock.
I am opposed to ‘devolution’ of the provision of housing to ‘not-for-profit’ NGOs, as I believe it is still privatisation.
For example – care for the aged has devolved from the ‘not-for-profit’ church groups to ‘for profit’ multinational companies.
www.business.auckland.ac.nz/Portals/4/Research/General/Wokiring_Paper_07_1_.pdf (Pg 17)
“The CEO of Presbyterian Support noted that the charitable organisations “reluctantly” exited the market which was increasingly dominated by “large national and multinational providers” (Presbyterian Support East Coast, 2005).
2004 also saw the sale of facilities belonging to the Auckland Methodists and Hastings St John of God (Presbyterian Support East Coast, 2005).
Charitable providers seemed to find the government’s then $80 daily subsidy5 made their business unsustainable (“No budget money for providers of residential care”, 2005).
In contrast to the charitable providers, the large for-profit providers are expanding within the market.
The Macquarie Group recently purchased Eldercare NZ .”
I believe we need to retain Housing New Zealand (HNZ) as a ‘one stop shop’ entity.
Housing is a Government responsibility, and if all Council tenants came under the HNZ umbrella, they too would have more affordable rents at 25% of their net income.
(As happened when Auckland City Council pensioner housing was taken over by HNZ in 2004).
SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE PROVISION:
Currently the following ARC plan changes (growth centres in corridors) are detailed as follows:
AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL Plan Change 175
RODNEY DISTRICT COUNCIL Plan Change 97
WAITAKERE CITY COUNCIL Plan Change 13
Plan Change 14
Plan Change 15
Plan Change 16
Plan Change 17
Plan Change 18
NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL Plan Change 12
MANUKAU CITY COUNCIL Plan Change 12
PAPAKURA DISTRICT COUNCIL Plan Change 10
FRANKLIN DISTRICT COUNCIL Plan Change 20
This process under these ‘District Plans’ are well underway, and immensely unpopular everywhere, as few people support a region full of potential slums and intensified housing compounds.
SOCIAL HOUSING:
There is a difference between ‘State’ housing and ‘social’ housing.
State housing is NOT temporary emergency housing – it is a separate entity.
“Vested interest groups need to start lobbying for all the social services to be reinstated – not piggy-back on State tenants” – Sue Henry Spokesperson for the Housing Lobby.
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENTS:
This happens now or if a person’s circumstances change.
How do people know for how long they are going to be ‘poor’?
CHANGE CONSENT PROCESSES:
Shane Jones – now Rodney Hide have and are changing consent processes through the Resource Management Act.
It appears that the main beneficiaries of this change will be property developers and speculators.
INCREASE UNITS FOR OLDER ADULTS:
The first step is not to force them out of existing dwellings, and to stop Government/ Council(s) and Landcorp
from selling off any remaining land.
INSULATION:
“Aucklanders have survived since the 1930s without insulation. Carpets are the most efficient way to stop draughts on bare wooden floors”, suggests Sue Henry Spokesperson for the Housing Lobby.
GIFT PORTIONS OF COUNCIL LAND FOR HOUSING:
What safeguards are in place to prevent the Auckland Council Property CCO from selling off such gifted land?
WARRANT OF FITNESS:
Does this apply to newer housing – as it arguably should – given that it is the newer houses that are problematic?
“Most older houses, particularly State houses are very structurally sound and there is nothing wrong with them”, Sue Henry Spokesperson for the Housing Lobby.
SECURITY OF TENURE:
I most definitely support ‘security of tenure’.
Having a stable base / affordable home is pivotal for most people – especially those with families.
“Returned servicemen, their wives and widows were told their house allocations were permanent (ie: for the rest of their lives). Many of us have been rallying for greedy politicians NOT to shift the goal posts. Every tenant should have the right to security of tenure and stability,” Sue Henry Spokesperson for the Housing Lobby.
Please be reminded that the ‘right’ to housing is a basic human right:
Article 25 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948)
1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
A) An investigation into the possible financing of affordable housing for low-income New Zealanders in the Auckland region with the introduction of an Auckland regional capital gains tax, on owners of multiple properties.
(This would EXCLUDE a single retirement investment property, by ‘Mum and Dad’ investors.)
B) An independent investigation the amount of ‘social capital’ (central government tax) paid by companies operating in New Zealand, with a view to establishing taxation income which could be used to finance low-income affordable housing.
C) In support of the principles of ‘open, transparent and democratically accountable’ local government – the establishment of a ‘Register of Interests’ of elected representatives in the Auckland region (and their spouses); and unelected senior Council officers, (and their spouses); property developers, and those on the Boards of CCOs – to prevent ‘conflicts of interest’ and potentially corrupt practices.
Cheers!
Penny
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
UPDATE FROM AUCKLAND MAYORAL CANDIDATE PENNY BRIGHT 28 AUGUST 2010
Hi folks!
It’s been FRANTIC!
If all those people who are opposed to the $UPERCITY vote Penny Bright for Mayor – the interests of the public majority will win in a landslide ‘PROTEST VOTE’ that NZ has never seen before!
It’s EXCITING!
Look at the Aussie elections!
Who would have predicted that outcome 4 weeks ago?
JUST PROVES THAT A WEEK IS A LONG TIME IN POLITICS!
One minute you’re the rooster – next minute you’re the feather duster!
I’m already polling – and don’t yet have one hoarding up!
OK FOLKS!
NEED SOME MONEY FOR THIS ELECTION CAMPAIGN TO HELP GET OUT THE MESSAGE!
Money can be paid into the following account, which has been set up for the Mayoral campaign:
Kiwibank:
Account Name: P M Bright
Account Number: 38-9010-0725719-00
___________________________________________________
PENNY BRIGHT 4 MAYOR WEBSITE!
My website http://www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz is completed and should be LIVE in 24 hours.
This website has key information / photos/ audio/ video/ media links that explains the work I’ve done as a ‘Public Watchdog’ and why I’m standing.
There are A4 size posters which you can download and put on your fridge / on your car window / noticeboards at your work / church/ sportclub/ local dairy / ….. the world is your oyster!
There are 4 per A4 page little posters, and my slightly more wordy ‘candidate statement’ 4 per page that can be photocopied on the back of the of the little posters.
___________________________________________________
AUCKLAND MAYORAL CANDIDATE PENNY BRIGHT’S
‘CANDIDATE STATEMENT’ ( with a few extra words! 🙂
___________________________________________________
IT’S TIME TO ROLLBACK ROGERNOMIC$!
This is not ‘left’ vs ‘right’.
This is ‘public’ vs ‘corporate’.
The $upercity agenda is about replacing thousands of ‘piggy in the middle’ private contractors with fewer but bigger multinational snouts into a bigger private trough. CUT OUT THE CONTRACTORS!
You didn’t vote for this Auckland $upercity and Rogernomic$ blitzkreig, to seize contol of $28 billion of Auckland public assets.
7 (corporate) Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) will grab 75% of Auckland regional rates.
Do you want unelected businesspeople controlling your interests?
These CCOs will be run like a business, by business for business – setting up for future privatisation under Public Private Partnerships
(PPPs).
Have your rates gone down since the last council amalgamations?
EVER?
The $upercity legislation legislation set up this corporate structure – it can and must be repealed.
You can make history!
Vote for the proven ‘Public Watchdog’.
Vote Penny Bright for Mayor!
wwwpennybright4mayor.org.nz
Authorised by Penny Bright 86A School Rd Kingsland
___________________________________________________
(Haven’t yet got a facebook page for the Mayoral campaign.
Anyone want to help with that one?)
‘Ordinary’ people can do EXTRAORDINARY things!
YOU are ‘EXTRAORDINARY’!
(Maybe you just haven’t realised this yet! 🙂
_________________________________________________________
CAN YOU HELP PUT UP A4 SIZE COLOUR POSTERS IN A SHOPPING CENTRE IN YOUR AREA?
(Did this 10 years ago in the Avondale/Mt Roskill by-election in 2000
(where I got over 6200 votes – 700 less than Noelene Raffills – in a Water Pressure Group campaign which called for people to ‘back up your vote with direct action! Join the wastewater bill boycott!’
Posters up in local shops are evidence of community support, and can’t be ripped down! 🙂
(I’ve found it usually takes about an hour to get 40 -50 posters up in a shopping centre.
You just have your roll of sellotape handy and ask if you can put up a poster, and offer to put it up yourself. Just check with the shop keeper where they’d like you to put it.
I will soon be sending out a list of shopping centres within the new Auckland Council ‘ward’ areas, so we can get coverage from Franklin to Rodney in an organised ‘PEOPLE POWER’ way!
______________________________________________________
FIGHTING WATER PRIVATISATION!
My ‘submission’ (HATE that word!) to the Local Government and Environment Select Committee on Thursday 19 August 2010, supporting genuine ‘transparency’ ; opposing 35 year private water contracts and exposing what I believe to be corrupt practices by those pushing for this legislative change – including Local Government NZ, The Society of Local Government Managers (SOLGM) and NZ Council for Infrastructural Development (NZCID):
www.guerillamedia.co.nz/content/mr-news-video-penny-bright-raises-questions-super-city-transparency
THANK YOU VINNIE EASTWOOD – MR NEWS! 🙂
(NO mainstream media were there – although the issue of 35 year private water contracts is a BIG Auckland election issue!)
________________________________________________
WANTED! ‘ANTI-CORRUPTION’ AUDITORS TO CHECK OUT $UPERCITY /ATA CONTRACTS FOR ‘CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ‘ CORRUPT PRACTICES’ AFTER ‘PUBLIC WATCHDOG’ CANDIDATE PENNY BRIGHT IS ELECTED MAYOR IN THE ‘PROTEST VOTE FROM HELL!’
Who are the most independent, high-callibre, trustworthy, internationally regarded anti-corruption auditors – who could be employed put a ‘fine-tooth comb’ through the contracts / elected representatives/ unelected beaurocrats/ policy advisors/analysts/ checking for ‘conflicts of interest’ and corrupt practices?
I asked:
Prem Sikka
Professor of Accounting
Centre for Global Accountability
Essex Business School
University of Essex
Colchester, Essex CO4 3SQ, UK
Office Tel: +44(0)1206 873773
Office Fax: +44 (01206) 873429
Mobile: 07866 139390
AABA Website: <a href="http://www.aabaglobal.orgwww.aabaglobal.org<http://www.aabaglobal.org
Dear Prem,
visar.csustan.edu/aaba/DirtyBusiness.pdf
I’m an Auckland Mayoral candidate in the Auckland NZ ‘$UPERCITY’ elections, and I am standing to STOP this latest ‘Rogernomic$ blitzkreig’, to help force the repeal of the underpinning legislation, which has set up a corporate framework for the future seizure of $28 billion worth of Auckland regional public assets.
Can you please advise me of who you think is the most independent, high-callibre, trustworthy, internationally regarded anti-corruption auditors – who could be employed put a ‘fine-tooth comb’ through the contracts / elected representatives/ unelected beaurocrats/ policy advisors/analysts/ checking for ‘conflicts of interest’ and corrupt practices?
(When I get elected Auckland Mayor in the landslide ‘PROTEST VOTE FROM HELL’ 🙂 – I want to immediately employ these anti-corruption auditors to go through the books.
At the same time – I’ll be encouraging people to follow my lead – to dispute and refuse to pay rates – to help force the repeal of the underpinning ‘$UPERCITY’ legislation which was railroaded through without our consent.
NO SAY – NO PAY!
______________________________
If you don’t know – could you please suggest who might know?
NZ is the country which spawned the ‘Rogernomic$’ devil child on an unsuspecting public, both nationally and internationally.
It is time to ROLL BACK ROGERNOMIC$!
Not spread and deepen it!
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Penny Bright
_____________________________________________________
From: Sikka, Prem N
Date: Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 3:39 AM
Dear Penny,
Thank you for your note. I would not wish to endorse any major accountancy firms for your noble work as too many are involved in variety of nefarious activities. Some evidence is provided in he attached papers and more can be found on the AABA website ( http://www.aabaglobal.org ).
In many ways, accountancy firms are part of the problem as they are dependent upon corporations for their fees. ………………
………………………………………………..
(Prem has given me names of key people to contact, who should be able to help.)
…………………………………..
Yes, anti-corruption audits and exposure of nasty practices will help and that could be supplemented by changes that empower people. May be the right to recall MPs, Mayors, referendums, legal changes, giving ratepayers the right to audit the books, changing corporate structures so that employees, local communities and consumers are represented on company boards, personal liability for wrongdoers in public and private office (not hiding behind corporate facades); closure of law firms, accounting firms, banks and others facilitating corrupt activities; subjecting corporations to freedom of information laws (why should they be exempt?), no public contract for any organisation that is involved in scandals, no public contracts for anyone until they publish specified information about their affairs (e.g. taxes paid, jobs created/lost, discrimination), organisations securing public contracts above $X to be subjected to a public interest audit, public ownership of all essential services, etc. might help.
………………………………………………
I wish you well with your campaign.
____________________________________________________
(See attachments from Prem Sikka!)
____________________________________________________
MEDIA COVERAGE:
TV COVERAGE:
There have now been 3 Mayoral debates that have involved myself, John Banks, Len Brown, Simon Prast, Colin Craig and Andrew Williams.
The latest was a debate on World TV (Chinese TV)
Wednesday 25 August 2010.
This will screen on:
Freeview CTV8 this Sunday 29 August at 9.00PM.
Think you’ll enjoy it!
Web: www.wtv.co.nz
______________________________________________________
PRINT MEDIA
Check out the latest ‘Investigate’!
(You should be able to buy a copy in your local supermarket 🙂
Mayoral candidates John Banks, Len Brown, Simon Prast, Colin Craig, Andrew Williams and myself, were all given an opportunity to explain in our own words why people should vote for us!
On the front cover of the September 2010 ‘Investigate’:
“Auckland’s Mayoral War
Why some of the six mayoral candidates believe building a supercity is a super mistake.”
MAYORAL CANDIDATE PENNY BRIGHT: My piece!
“Thank God when the Nazis invaded France – the French Resistance didn’t just wring their hands and say “Oh well – it’s too late – we can’t do anything.”
Thoughout New Zealand towns and cities, are historically significant marble monuments dedicated to those who left in their khakhi uniforms and never came home.
Is that why 12,500 ANZACs died in Northern France and Belgium?
So the income stream from operating and managing OUR key public infrastructural water services, transport and rubbish collection could be taken over by French multinational company Veolia – without OUR consent?
Without a shot being fired – this Auckland ‘$UPERCITY is a blatant corporate raid, aimed at seizing control and privatising over $28 billion worth of Auckland regional public assets.
This has been another Rogernomic$ blitzkreig, pushed by big business, in order to run the Auckland region, ‘like a business, by business, for business’.
How business will take over is through the corporate ‘Council Controlled Organisation’ (CCO) model, into which 75% of Auckland regional rates will be paid, run by boards of unelected business appointees, over which the public have no direct control.
The other Mayoral candidates who support – or are not opposed to the CCO model – therefore support this corporate takeover.
The corporate agenda is to ‘commercialise, corporatise – then PRIVATISE these public assets through long-term leases via Public Private Partnerships (PPPs). Although the infrastructure may remain in public ownership – the income stream from operating and managing the asset will flow (usually overseas) into the banks of private shareholders.
The aim of the $upercity is to replace thousands of private ‘piggy in the middle’ snouts with fewer but bigger multinational snouts – into a bigger public trough.
This political battle isn’t between ‘left’ and ‘right’.
It’s between the corporates and the public, and those who serve their interests.
I’m the only Mayoral candidate with both a ‘vision’ and a ‘plan’ to STOP THE $UPERCITY.
My vision is that the people of Auckland will rise up to STOP this corrupt corporate takeover, to defend two fundamental and underpinning principles of democracy:
“It is the will of the people that is the basis of the authority of Government.”
“There shall be no taxation without representation” – NO SAY – NO PAY!
1) Voting ‘Penny Bright for Mayor’ will give this Government the very clear message, that cannot be ignored – the people do NOT want the Auckland $upercity.
2) Consider ‘backing up your vote with direct action’ – disputing and with holding rates payments to force the repeal of the underpinning $UPERCITY legislation.
Citizens were denied our lawful right to a binding vote on the $UPERCITY as enshrined in s 24 of the Local Government Act 2002 “Reorganisational Proposal’, Schedule 3, s 49 “Polls must be held”
“a poll of electors on the proposal that that the reorganisation scheme proceed must be held in each district or region that is directly affected by the scheme.”
Since the last ‘amalgamations’ in the 1980s, when the functioning Auckland Regional Authority (ARA) and local Borough Councils were replaced with our current Councils; since ‘in-house’ Council services were replaced with the ‘contractocracy’ – since the introduction of commercialised ‘more efficient’ CCOs – HAVE YOUR RATES GONE UP OR DOWN???
SEE! YOU WERE ‘CONNED’!
Look at your face in the mirror, and ask yourself – what are YOU going to say when your grandson or granddaughter asks:
“Why is Auckland is run by multinational companies?
Why does everything cost so much money?
Why are Mummy and Daddy going to shift us over to Australia?
Why didn’t people stop this Grandma? Grandad?”
Or do you just want the public majority to be a giant ‘ca$h cow?
All pay – no say?
Help make history! Vote Penny Bright for Mayor!
“When injustice becomes law – resistance becomes duty!”
__________________________________________
SIGNIFICANT LATEST NEWS!
Ministers renege on vow to consult mayors on Super City boards
www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10669174
Jane Kelsey: The folly of using private companies for public services
www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10668821
Cheers!
Penny
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
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com
Ph: 0011 64 9 846 9825
021 211 4 127
Professor slams Super City structure (in case you missed this – like I did!)
tvnz.co.nz/local-elections-2010/professor-slams-super-city-structure-3714234
Professor slams Super City structure
Published: 1:02PM Wednesday August 18, 2010
Source: ONE News
Professor slams Super City structure (Source: Supplied)
Prof Ian Shirley says Auckland’s Super City is the demolition of local government. – Source: Supplied
A university professor who has been involved in Auckland’s development over the past decade, launched a broadside today at what he describes as the demolition of local government in Auckland.
Professor Ian Shirley, pro-vice chancellor of AUT University, and professor of public policy with the university’s institute of public policy addressed the National Policy Makers Conference 2010 in Wellington today.
Professor Shirley is a member of the Auckland Regional Economic Development Forum, and maintains that the proposed model for the structure of Auckland’s governance effectively removes local government from Auckland.
He argues that it will be replaced with “a corporate structure where the major beneficiaries will be the exclusive brethren of big business, merchant bankers and a narrow range of consultants dominated by legal and accountancy firms”.
He says within days of the publication of the royal commission’s report on the governance of Auckland, the minister of local government introduced a badly conceived strategy that effectively undermines local government in Auckland.
“It ignores history, fails to connect in any meaningful way with the diverse populations and neighbourhoods of the region and has established a corporate framework and process that will not gain the trust of ratepayers,” Professor Shirley says.
According to Shirley the policies are driven by a form of economic fundamentalism that equates ‘governance’ with managing a ‘business’ and reduces democracy to a token engagement in the decision-making systems of local and regional government.
He says the 21 local boards proposed will be toothless. “The current prescriptions for these boards and the minimal allocation of support services make it clear that the boards will be largely irrelevant in decision-making.”
Further, 75% of Auckland’s public assets will be transferred to Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) with the majority of directors for the CCOs appointed by government ministers.
“In this case, CCO’s stand for Corporate Controlled Organisations, with the elected members on local boards having little say over how those assets are used,” he says.
Shirley claims multi-cultural populations have no structural form of representation within the Super City, despite nearly one quarter of all children under 10 living in Pacific households.
Although mayoral candidates have proposed the establishment of advisory boards for children as well as other specific population groups, Shirley dismisses these proposals as ‘clip ons’ controlled by Wellington.
“Overall the proposed new structure for Auckland’s governance fails to address the distinctive characteristics of Auckland, its population profile, and its potential.”
www.aut.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/149518/Ian-Shirley_policy-makers-speech_aug10.pdf
Auckland Mayoral candidate Penny Bright supports the ‘Stand Up for Your Rights at Work this Saturday’, 1pm, QE2 Square, Bottom of Queen St, Auckland
21 August 2010
This is just same old ‘Rogernomic$’ – WAR ON THE POOR!
Where are the attacks on the employers rights to organise to protect their interests?
DIRECT ACTION WORKS!
“WHEN INJUSTICE BECOMES LAW – RESISTANCE BECOMES DUTY!”
I support the formation of the Unite the Union (UTU) squad which will picket ‘bad bosses’ who unfairly sack workers.
What do you expect when ‘lawful due process’ is legislated out of existence, and workers can be sacked for no reason in the first 90 days of employment?
“Before the Auckland Rally, join the UTU (Unite The Union) Squad, 12noon, JB Hi Fi, Queen St, Auckland
The UTU squad is for people wanting to take direct action against bad employers.
We want to be able to picket a bad boss as soon as we get news about an unfair sacking.”
#344: Stand Up for Your Rights at Work this Saturday, 1pm, QE2 Sq
gpjanz | August 19, 2010 at 10:02 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/pBvMo-3t
GLOBALPEACE AND JUSTICE AUCKLAND
NEWSLETTER No.344, August 19, 2010
Stand Up for Your Rights at Work this Saturday, 1pm, QE2 Square, Bottom of Queen St, Auckland
-Reject the 90-day right to sack for no reason law
-Support your right to have fair access to union advice and support
-Support your right to proper rest breaks
-Protect your sick and holiday leave
Before the Auckland Rally, join the UTU (Unite The Union) Squad, 12noon, JB Hi Fi, Queen St, Auckland
The UTU squad is for people wanting to take direct action against bad employers. We want to be able to picket a bad boss as soon as we get news about an unfair sacking.
Come to the Council of Trade Unions Fairness Rallies across NZ this Saturday at 1pm
Auckland: 1pm, QE2 Square, (Bottom of Queen St, opposite Britomart)
Wellington: 1pm, Saturday 21st August, Civic Square,
Christchurch: 1pm, Saturday 21st August, Cathedral Square
Dunedin: 11am, Sunday 22nd August – Assemble at Dental School, GreatKingStreet, March to rally at the Octagon
Friday 12-2pm: “Utu Squad” Names And Shames Burger Fuel For 89th DaySacking – Unite takes up John Key’s challenge to name and shame bad employers.
Recently the Prime Minister requested unions to directly name and shame bad employers who act badly against their employees. Unite and the rest of the trade union movement is taking up the challenge.
A special direct action group called the UTU Squad is picketing the Mission Bay Burger Fuel store onFriday from 12-2pm to protest the sacking of a worker on the 89th day of her employment. Joanne Bartlett’s dismissal came a few days after she had asked for more than a single 10 minute lunch break each day she had been receiving for an 8 hour shift. Ms Bartlett had consistently received the highest grades inBurger Fuel’s training programme and had culinary school qualifications. She had also worked extra shifts when requested.
No reason was given for the dismissal. The UTU Squad has been formed by Unite because they believe justice for workers needs a group willing to take direct action against bad employers to uphold workers rights.
“If the government takes away workers’ rights to use legal means to protect themselves from unjust actions like this then workers have to go back to the tradition of direct action as the only way left to support workers like Joanne”, says Mike Treen Unite National Director.
Auckland Mayoral candidate Penny Bright attacks ‘corporate beneficiaries’ NBR post
www.nbr.co.nz/article/parliament-passes-governments-welfare-changes-128426#comment-49509
Where are the jobs? What about ‘CORPORATE WELFARE’?
This is same old – same old ‘Rogernomic$’.
War on the poor.
Where are all the checks on the corporate welfare beneficiaries
– the CONsultants and private CONtractors who have been making a fortune from our public monies for years?
Of course – we have yet to see any ‘cost-benefit’ analysis which proves that the contracting out of public services – the replacement of the ‘beaurocracy’ with the ‘contractocracy’ is more ‘cost-effective’ for the public majority.
Is this because it would prove that the ‘public is bad – private is good’ mantra has just been one gigantic CON job?
What is this National/ACT government doing to provide incentives for corporate welfare beneficiaries to escape from the disease of (corporate) welfarism’?
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
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com
Penny Bright needs to get a
Penny Bright needs to get a life. Her political views are so well known she sounds like a tired old broken record, with nothing new to say. As for her self appointed fancy titles – who cares??? It doesn’t give her views any more credibility than calling hersef “obsessed self important left wing nutter”.
Posted by Lindsay at 11:52 am on August 19, 2010
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Are you Lindsay Fergusson – Business Roundtable?
Thanks Lindsay!
www.nzbr.org.nz/documents/speeches/speeches-90-91/pubrelations.do…
Public Relations Institute of New Zealand
What Can Public Relations
Offer New Zealand Business?
Lindsay Fergusson AUCKLAND
GROUP MANAGING DIRECTOR 28 JUNE 1991
MAGNUM CORPORATION LIMITED
WHAT CAN PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFER
NEW ZEALAND BUSINESS?
I want to begin by giving you some background on the New Zealand Business Roundtable, of which I am a member.
In the early 1980s a group of business executives met together on a casual basis to discuss common business issues.
The Business Roundtable has grown from this loose group into an incisive think tank, constantly researching and assessing its own business viewpoints. Like us or not, we are contributing in a major and constructive way to the decision making processes and vision of our society.
Our charter commits us to promoting overall New Zealand interests, including a more prosperous economy and a fair society….”
Is this YOU Lindsay?
Lindsay Fergusson – NZ Business Round Table?
If so – that would help explain your rather apoplectic and allergic reaction to what I’m saying about ‘corporate welfare’?
Given that fellow members of the BRT appear to have benefitted so much from it?
Isn’t it because you know that I am right that I appear to have SO jammed your buttons on full?
Your response has made my day! 🙂
I’ll explain again – my description as a ‘Judicially recognised Public Watchdog’ is based on comments made by District Court Judges in my battle for for ‘open, transparent and democratically accountable’ local government.
(21 -1 to me in Court – not for someone who had never been to University – let alone had a day’s formal legal training Lindsay?)
Never mind Lindsay – when I become Mayor of the Auckland $upercity in the protest vote from hell – I will get the best, independent, highest callibre international anti-corruption auditors to go through the ATA and Council contracts/ contractors to identify ‘conflicts of interest’ and corrupt practices in order to help force the repeal of the underpinning legislation.
I guess I’ll REALLY ‘have a life’ then eh Lindsay!
Helping to make ‘corporate welfare beneficiaries’ accountable, after all these years of ripping off the public.
I look forward to your vote ! 🙂
Kind regards
Penny
Penny Bright
Media Spokesperson
Water Pressure Group
Judicially recognised Public Watchdog on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance.
“Anti-corruption campaigner’
AUCKLAND MAYORAL CANDIDATE
Auckland Mayoral Candidate Penny Bright to give verbal ‘submission’ to the Local Govt Select Cttee Auckland hearing -supporting transparency and opposing water privatisation Thursday 19 August 12.15 – 12.30 noon.
Auckland Mayoral Candidate Penny Bright to give verbal ‘submission’ to the Local Govt Select Cttee Auckland hearing -supporting transparency and opposing water privatisation Thursday 19 August 12.15 – 12.30 noon.
585 Great South Rd Penrose
Suggest you come if you can!
I’ll be exposing what I consider to be the lack of transparency and corrupt practices in the contracting out of Council services – particularly water services.
“1) I request that the call for an inquiry into the 7 United Water NZ contracts, as outlined in Petition 2008/002, is not lumped in with this Bill, but treated separately on its merits.
2) Regarding ‘open, transparent and democratically accountable’ local government.
On 9 March 2009, I submitted evidence to this same Local Government and Environment Select Committee, in support of Petition 2008/002: which:
“Respectfully request(ed) that the House urgently amend the Local Government Act 2002 to make it a mandatory requirement to ensure Councils and Council Controlled Organisations are open to public scrutiny by using Annual Reports to record contracts issued to the private sector for ‘goods, services and people’ as a means of providing openness and accountability in Council operations; and to help ensure ‘prudent stewardship’ of citizen and ratepayer resources.”
MY CONSIDERED RECOMMENDATION AS TO THE NECESSARY LEGISLATIVE CHANGE:
Publishing details of contracts issued’ in Council Annual Reports is not intended to add thousands of pages, containing every word written for every contract issued.
All that is required is:
a) The name(s) of the contracting company/contractor.
b) The $ value of the contract.
c) The term (length) of the contract.
d) The scope of the contract.
Eg: DOG CONTROL
a) Joe Bloggs Dog Control Services Ltd
b) $350,000
c) 2008 -2010
d) Enforcement of Dog Control Bylaw 123 for Auckland City Council (ward(s) covered)
e) CONTRACT NUMBER ACC 33333
www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/2AC1B203-C1C0-4ADF-82FD-DA8C3CB87C1D/101135/DBSCH_SCR_4282_6542.pdf
“It is our view that the issues raised by the petitioner are best dealt with as part of a comprehensive review and we recommend that the Minister consider the issues raised in this petition.”
Unfortunately – this Bill does not fix this problem.
The public still don’t know exactly where our rates are being spent.
This is NOT transparent.
It seems ridiculous that the public can scrutinise thousands of pages detailing Ministerial spending on credit cards – but the public are not provided with the above-mentioned ‘devilish’ detail which would clearly show where BILLION$ of residents and ratepayers public monies are being spent on private contractors.
Please amend this Bill to so do.
3) I believe that water privatisation covers both the operation and management, as well as ownership of the water services assets.
The income stream will flow from publicly-owned pipes to the private sector.
I believe that the legislative changes proposed by this Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill will make it easier for multinational water companies such as United Water to effectively gain control of water services in New Zealand. (United Water is 100% owned by Veolia Water – the world’s largest multinational water company).
I believe that the ownership, operation and management of essential public services – especially water services, which are vital for public health and sanitation, should remain under the direct democratic control of elected representatives, not ‘commercialised’ under the CCO (Metrowater) model or privatised under the Public Private Partnership (PPP – (United Water Papakura) model.
I believe that water services should not be operated and managed as a ‘profit-making business’.
CCOs – lead to PPPs ‘commercialise – corporatise – PRIVATISE!
Where is the evidence which conclusively proves that privatisation through ‘contracting out’ or PPPs benefits the public majority.
I am totally opposed to s. 31 and s.32, and believe they should be struck out.
4) I believe that it is a form of ‘corrupt practice’ for policy analysts producing ‘Regulatory Impact Statements’ for Cabinet, to treat bodies such as the NZ Council for Infrastructure Development (NZCID) as an ‘independent 3rd party’ when they represent financially-interested parties. ”
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
waterpressure.wordpress.com
Mayoral Debate on ‘Sport’ Monday 16 August 2010 NZ Herald coverage
www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/video.cfm?c_id=1&gal_objectid=10666582&gallery_id=113256
www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10666582
Super City hopefuls aired their sport credentials in Albany tonight with promises of free swimming pool access and a marine park in Hobson Bay.
Representatives from 33 different sports – ranging from curling to rugby – turned out to hear six of the Super City candidates speak.
Candidates were asked three set questions including how important they viewed sport, their solution to limited resources, and their funding policy.
The evening was hosted by sport broadcaster Doug Golightly who told the 150 people in the audience: “It is an undeniable fact that must not be side-stepped, sport is an election issue.”
Manukau Mayor Len Brown said he would like to roll out Manukau’s policy of free entry to public pools.
After the debate he told nzherald.co.nz that free admission to pools such as Auckland’s tepid baths and Parnell baths would take about 18 months to put into practice.
Mr Brown said all school children in years four and five should get free swimming lessons.
Article continues below
Asked how Auckland would pay for it, Mr Brown said: “People are always going to throw at you the affordability issue and we have done a lot of work. It is not cost effective to elicit a charge”.
He said pools in Manukau have calculated that they lose between 50 and 60 per cent of their patronage if they charge users.
Mr Brown said swimming was part of creating a healthy and active generation.
Auckland City Mayor John Banks said sport keeps kids out of court.
“Sports facilities are a critical building block of a healthy, active city,” Mr Banks said.
He also promised to turn Hobson Bay into a marine park and an international rowing course.
After the debate, he said the 1912 concrete pipeline in the bay was almost destroyed but further work on the rubbish was needed.
“Around the cliffs, it is littered like a rubbish tip,” Mr Banks said.
He said instead of the mangroves and rubbish, he would like to see a boardwalk.
Mr Banks said the bay should be used by rowing clubs across Auckland to save them driving hours to and from Lake Karapiro in the Waikato.
Asked why Takapuna’s Lake Pupuke could not be used instead, Mr Banks said he had not thought about Lake Pupuke.
North Shore Mayor Andrew Williams said he was proud of North Shore’s record in sport.
“Something like a third of the Commonwealth Games team that went to Melbourne either lived or trained here,” Mr Williams said.
He also paid tribute to the thousands of volunteers that give up their time every week in coaching and administration.
Pro-smacking campaigner Colin Craig said sport hinges on participation and must be sustainable.
“We can’t do the Olympic Games,” Mr Craig said.
He said the basketball world junior championships hosted by Auckland was great for the city and was televised in 140 countries.
Mr Craig also advocated for a sports coordination centre as part of the new Super City council. He said the centre would coordinate assets and facilities “that are already there”.
“We will coordinate things better but we won’t break things that are working,” Mr Craig said.
Actor Simon Prast said he had a sporting background which included having All Black Graham Henry as a PE teacher.
“The whole Super City is about building team Auckland and electing a captain of team Auckland,” Mr Prast said.
He said as Super City mayor, he would set up 12 portfolios, one of which would be dedicated to sport.
“I put my hand up because, with all due respect, I couldn’t vote for any of them,” Mr Prast said.
He was interrupted by Mr Williams who said: “You haven’t read my pamphlets”.
Mr Prast responded: “Sadly, Andrew, I have. I’ve read all your pamphlets”.
Water campaigner Penny Bright said she was opposed to the Super City which was all about commercialisation, including sport. She pleaded to voters to register a protest vote and vote for her.
All candidates except Mr Williams, agreed to create a sports specific role within their Mayoral office. Mr Williams said it was an “interesting idea” and he would give it further thought.
By Edward Gay | Email Edward
Will Mayor Len Brown deny Auckland Mayoral candidate Penny Bright ‘speaking rights’ and call the Police as he did at the July 2010 Manukau City Council meeting?
12 August 2010
Manukau City Council
Mayor Len Brown
Manukau City Council CEO
Leigh Auton
(As per my telephone discussion this afternoon with the Manager for Democratic Services, Warwick McNaughton)
‘Open Letter’ Request for Speaking rights at the Manukau City Council Meeting on Thursday 26 August 2010:
A) I am requesting ‘speaking rights’ in accordance with Manukau City Council Standing Order 1.0 Deputations, 2.13.1.1, at the Manukau City Council meeting to be held on Thursday 26 August 2010:
1.0 Deputations
“2.13.1.1
Deputations may be received by the Council (or any committees thereof) provided an application for admission setting forth the subject has been lodged with the Chief Executive Officer at least fourteen (14) clear days before the date of the meeting concerned and has been subsequently approved by the Mayor or Chairperson. The Mayor or Chairperson may refuse requests for deputations which are repetitious or offensive or are not within the scope of the role of functions of the Council.”
B) My topic is :
The right of the public to participate in the democratic process of local government, by applying for ‘speaking rights’, to address Council, or Committees of Council, under the ‘Deputations’ provision of Standing Orders, whose ‘underpinning’ legislative basis is the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.
“Purposes
4. The purposes of this Act are—
(a) To provide for the availability to the public of official information held by local authorities, and to promote the open and public transaction of business at meetings of local authorities, in order—
(i) To enable more effective participation by the public in the actions and decisions of local authorities; and
(ii) To promote the accountability of local authority members and officials,—
(a) and thereby to enhance respect for the law and to promote good local government in New Zealand:
(b) To provide for proper access by each person to official information relating to that person:
(c) To protect official information and the deliberations of local authorities to the extent consistent with the public interest and the preservation of personal privacy.”
____________________________________________________
1) ‘Democracy’ is not a ‘spectator sport’.
Mere ‘attendance’ at Council meetings is NOT ‘participation’.
2) A mechanism through which members of the public can ‘participate’, is set out in ‘Standing Orders – Deputations’ which cannot be arbitrarily and unilaterally altered on the whim of either the Mayor or Council Officers.
3) Please be reminded of the following:
www.manukau.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/04-1267%20Standing%20Orders%202004.pdf
Standing Orders (2004)
Minute Number: CL/JULY/1267/04
Standing Orders adopted under Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 which provides:
(1) A local authority must adopt a set of standing orders for the conduct of its meetings and those of its committees.
(2) The standing orders of a local authority must not contravene the Act, the Local Government
Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, or any other Act.
C) My reasons for requesting ‘speaking rights’ on this matter:
1) Quite frankly, I am deeply concerned at the lack of understanding by yourself, Mayor Len Brown and senior Manukau City Council Officers, of the democratic rights of the public, as outlined in the above-mentioned Local Government Information and Meetings Act 1987.
2) I was even more appalled to be advised by Kim Wichman, Rima Taraia, and Annie King, that after the (unlawful – in my considered opinion) denial of speaking rights for the Manukau City Council meeting held on Thursday 29 July 2010, that nine Police Officers were called, after the above-mentioned women had left the Council Chambers of their accord, after being requested to so do by a security guard employed Manukau City Council.
www.manukau.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Council%20minutes%2029%20July%202010.pdf
2. DEPUTATIONS – 283-289 KIRKBRIDE ROAD MANGERE
(see Appendix “A”)
Portfolio Area : Not Applicable
Significance of Decision : Internal Procedure
Reporting Unit : Democratic Services
Reporting Officer : Janette McKain, Committee Advisor
Ward : Citywide
MINUTE NO. CL/JUL/743/10 – HIS WORSHIP THE MAYOR/CR GARY TROUP
That pursuant to Standing Order 2.13.1.1, a deputation from Paitai Taringa and Henry Herman from the Cook Islands Taokotaianga Charitable Trust be heard for a maximum of ten minutes with a further ten minutes allowed for questions.
CARRIED
Cr Daniel Newman entered the meeting at 5.10pm.
Cr David Collings entered the meeting at 5.14pm.
His Worship the Mayor required a member of the public to leave the meeting due to disruptive behaviour.
The meeting adjourned at 5.20pm with His Worship the Mayor leaving the meeting.
The meeting reconvened at 5.26pm with the following present:
His Worship the Mayor, Councillors Troup, Newman, Quax, Burrill, Filipaina, Williams, Koka, Collings, Ross, Taylor, Wichman, Brown, Stewart and Walker.”
______________________________
3) I also note that the Minutes of this Manukau City Council meeting of July 2010, are not a true and accurate account – in that they do not state that Mayor Len Brown declined a deputation request for ‘speaking rights’ from Kim Wichman and Rima Taraia on 19 July 2010.)
4) Having been subjected to the same (unlawful) denial of speaking rights at Auckland City Council, and defending the public’s right to ‘open, transparent and democratically accountable’ local government to the point of arrest on 22 occasions, and successfully defending myself in Court (21 -1 to me vs the Police and Auckland City Council), with all due respect, I believe it is fair to say that I have knowledge and experience in this area of NZ Local Government law that is unmatched.
a) In this respect, I fail to see any real difference between either yourself, Mayor Len Brown and Mayor John Banks, in terms of an effective abuse of lawful Mayoral power and authority.
b) Except that in the case with Mayor John Banks – the Police no longer attend Auckland City Council meetings to act as Auckland City Council’s ‘security guards’.
c) These above-mentioned 22 arrests have been a considerable waste of public money and Police resources, particularly when the Police have continuously lost in Court.
d) (Please be advised that the only case that I have lost, has now been lodged with the United Nations Human Rights Committee, given that I have now exhausted all legal avenues to appeal my criminal conviction for trespass at the Auckland Town Hall on 23 November 2005, at a time arguably the most public of all public buildings was open to the public.)
4) What is of particular concern to me, are the following reasons given for the declining of ‘speaking rights’, which have no lawful basis in either ‘Standing Orders’ or the underpinning legislation upon which these Standing Orders are based.
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Warwick McNaughton
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:29:32 +1200
Subject: Request for deputation
To: kim tetua
Hi Kim
I have discussed your (and Rima’s) requests for deputations with the mayor.
Your initial requests to speak again about the Kirkbride Road house and Manukau Water have been declined because you have already spoken on these subjects.
Your requests to speak about the “Manukau Corporation” and Cook Islands Investment Corporation and about pacific island representation on the Auckland Council are also declined.
The mayor’s concerns include the aspect that the monthly council meeting is not a public forum.
Deputations to council should normally be about matters that the council has on its agenda and will be deciding.
Furthermore it is likely that the council does not have the power to make decisions around such things as pacific island respresentation on the Auckland Council. It may be better to make these representations through the Pacific Island Advisory Committee.
Naku noa na | Regards
Warwick McNaughton
Manager Democratic Services
______________________________________________________
5) Those reasons for declining ‘Deputations’ are NOT stated in :
‘Manukau City Council Standing Order
1.0 Deputations
“2.13.1.1
Deputations may be received by the Council (or any committees thereof) provided an application for admission setting forth the subject has been lodged with the Chief Executive Officer at least fourteen (14) clear days before the date of the meeting
concerned and has been subsequently approved by the Mayor or Chairperson. The Mayor or Chairperson may refuse requests for deputations which are repetitious or offensive or are not within the scope of the role of functions of the Council.”
a) With all due respect, Mayor Len Brown, you do not have the authority to just ‘make it up’, and apply ‘discretionary authority’ for which there quite simply is no lawful basis.
b)What concerns me even more, is that you, Mayor Len Brown,
(unlike myself), are a qualified lawyer.
6) To make matters worse – the second request for a ‘Deputation’ at the upcoming Manukau City Council meeting on 26 August 2010, emailed by Kim Wichman on 6 August 2010, was also declined:
a) ‘Deputation’ request:
“Kia orana Len, I wish to apply for deputation for the next Council Meeting on the 26th August 2010 for status and clarification over the succession planning process in regards to the Memorandum of
Cooperation with Manukau City Council and the Cook islands government, as custodian over the Memorandum of Cooperation for the Cook Islands Indigenous peoples it is pivotal that(Aotearoa) C.I. landowners are informed on this and how that information is disseminated.
I wish to speak on this matter as the Auckland City transition will be binding on the wider Auckland Cook Islands community.
Look forward to your response.”
__________________________________
7) The reasons given for the (unlawful) declining of this ‘Deputation’, for the second time, to Kim Wichman, by yourself, Mayor Len Brown:
From: Warwick McNaughton
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 13:47:38 +1200
Subject: RE: Deputations
To: kim.tetua@gmail.com
Cc: Leigh Auton , Len Brown
, Faama Viliamu
<Faama.Viliamu@manukau.govt.nz
Kia orana Kim
His Worship the Mayor acknowledges receipt of your request for a
deputation. He has declined it on the basis that it is not within the scope of the current council.
The question of the on-going status ofthe MOU is certainly a good question, however the mayor and the councillors are not in a position to be able to answer it or to change the legislation relating to it, neither is it a matter that is before the council by way of an agenda item.
He has therefore asked me to research it and to get back to you.
I suspect that the answer to your question is firstly a legal one.
The legislation relating to the Auckland Council makes provision for matters such as bylaws, statutory policies and the district plan to carry over to the new council. The status of a formal MOU is less clear. I will therefore ask our Legal Counsel to provide a legal opinion on this.
If it turns out that the MOU does not carry over then you may wish to have some information about the proposed arrangments for enegagement with the Pacific community that is in the new Auckland Council legislation. I can provide you with this if you would like to have it.
I will also respond quickly to your other email about speaking rights.
Meetings of the council are meetings of the mayor and councillors (who also have staff present to advise them).
They are not public meetings in the sense that the public can participate.
The Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 requires meetings to be open to the public to attend. "Attendance" does not mean speaking rights.
That Act goes on to state in section 50 that if the presiding member
believes a member of the public is likely to prejudice the orderly
conduct of the meeting then the presiding member can require that person to leave the meeting. If the person refuses to leave then "any constable, or any officer or employee of the local authority, may, at the request of the person presiding at the meeting, remove or, as the case may require, exclude that member of the public from the meeting."
www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1987/0174/latest/DLM123099.htm
l
It is not necessary to use trespass proceedings. The law (the Act above) allows an employee to actually remove the person, however our process is to call our security guard first and if the person still
refuses to leave the security guard will call the police.
Part of my role is to look after the democratic process.
In a demnocracy the people are free to elect their representatives who then make decisions on behalf of the community.
The elected representatives have the right, and the duty, to have regular meetings to consider the needs of the community.
They are required by law to adopt standing orders and to observe those standing orders in terms of the conduct of their meetings.
Those standing orders are quite formal at meetings of the full council. If a councillor refused to abide by the standing orders and continued to speak out of turn when ordered by the mayor to stop speaking then the mayor would have the ability to require that councillor to leave for contempt.
It is not appropriate for councillors to offend against the standing orders – it is certainly not appropriate for members of the public.
The standing orders around deputations provide for a speaking time set by council resolution followed by questions from councillors.
At your last deputation you continued to debate the matter after your speaking time had expired.
You may also be interested to know that the standing orders require of councillors that they do not ask formal questions at a council meeting unless they have been unsuccessful in getting an answer through officers. So for councillors there is an expectation that if they have a query, such as your query about the status of the MOU, they will get advice from officers in the first instance.
There is also a requirement on the council to consider the views of the community. When a specific issue comes up the council may conduct a consultation exercise for example. There are many ways in which the opinions of the community can be heard.
Another way is through public forums. At Manukau we have encouraged public forums at community board meetings and often a number of members of the public will attend a community board meeting to speak at the public forum.
We do not have a public forum at the council or council committee meetings. Some other councils do have this. If you have attended other councils you may have thought that when you spoke at Manukau that you were taking part in a public forum.
That would not have been correct – a deputation is a formal request to the council. A deputation usually relates to a matter on the agenda about which the council is to make a decision and the deputation requests the council to decide it in a particular way. It is not a platform for speaking about matters in general, whereas a public forum may well be.
In terms of issues relating to the pacific community the council has had a Pacific Island Advisory Committee in existence for many years. This is another avenue for members of the pacific community to raise issues.
I will get back to you with the legal opinion on the on-going status of the MOU.
Naku noa na | Regards
Warwick McNaughton
Manager Democratic Services
__________________________________________________
8.Please be reminded that Kim Wichman did NOT have ‘speaking rights’ as part of the ‘Deputation’ which addressed the earlier Manukau City Council 24 June 2010 meeting:
www.manukau.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Council%20minutes%2024%20June%202010.pdf
“MINUTE NO. CL/JUN/621/10 – HIS WORSHIP THE MAYOR/CR COLLEEN BROWN
1. That pursuant to Standing Order 2.13.1.1, a deputation from Annie King be heard for a maximum of ten minutes with a further ten minutes allowed for questions.
2. That pursuant to Standing Order 2.13.1.1, a deputation from Rima Tamarua (sic Taraia) be heard for a maximum of ten minutes with a further ten minutes allowed for questions.
CARRIED
The deputations addressed the council and answered questions.”
____________________________________________________
9) Again, in my considered opinion, the reasons given for declining ‘speaking rights’ to Kim Wichman under ‘Deputations’, have no lawful basis under ‘Standing Orders’ or the underpinning above-mentioned Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987:
“Manukau City Council Standing Order
1.0 Deputations
“2.13.1.1
Deputations may be received by the Council (or any committees thereof) provided an application for admission setting forth the subject has been lodged with the Chief Executive Officer at least fourteen (14) clear days before the date of the meeting
concerned and has been subsequently approved by the Mayor or Chairperson. The Mayor or Chairperson may refuse requests for deputations which are repetitious or offensive or are not within the scope of the role of functions of the Council.”
D) I look forward to commonsense and lawful due process being applied, and my request for speaking rights being accepted at your earliest convenience.
I also respectfully suggest that you reconsider your declining of ‘speaking rights’ to Kim Wichman, if you have not already done so.
Yours sincerely,
Penny
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
waterpressure@gmail.com
Protesters support swine flu sceptic – ‘STUFF’ covers our protest outside NZ Austrian Consulate
Stuff.co.nz
Sarah thought you might like to read the following story on Stuff.co.nz.
Protesters support swine flu sceptic
Supporters of a journalist facing charges in Austria gathered in protest outside that country’s consulate in Albany. … Read More
-
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 