DEBATE ON KIWIBLOG OVER DEFENDING THE BASIC HUMAN RIGHT TO WATER BY UNRESTRICTING ‘TAMPERED’ WATER METERS
24 June 2011
DEBATE ON KIWIBLOG OVER DEFENDING THE BASIC HUMAN RIGHT TO WATER BY UNRESTRICTING ‘TAMPERED’ WATER METERS: publicwatchdog (707) Says: June 24th, 2011 at 5:27 pm Sofia (159)
Says: June 24th, 2011 at 8:03 am
A very scary video of a person advocating criminal acts against New Zealand authorities – www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzccHIB3paQ _______________________________________________________________________________________________
errr……….. what’s the ‘criminal’ offence ‘Sofia’? You are obviously not up with the play with recent International developments regarding the Human Right to water and sanitation?
www.canadians.org/media/water/2011/20-Jun-11.html
Arguably the ‘criminal’ offence is the ‘tampering’ with the water meter to restrict a household’s water supply, which is essential for health and sanitation.
(I’m simply showing how to remedy that ‘tampering’ 🙂
Yesterday at the Auckland Council meeting, I took along ‘Rita’ and ‘Peter’ (our demonstration water meters), plus a clamp which I had removed with an angle grinder, and explained VERY clearly to all Councillors and representatives of Watercare who were present, that the Water Pressure Group would simply not tolerate water restriction being used as a means of debt enforcement.
To assist – I used our demonstration water meters to show HOW water meters were restricted, and we would unrestrict them.
I took (and take) FULL personal responsibility on behalf of the Water Pressure Group for unrestricting water meters and training hundreds (hopefully thousands) of citizens to defend their household’s basic human right to water.
In the ‘bad old days’ (before the Local Government Act 2002) Metrowater (contractors) used to restrict water meters in order to try and punish Water Pressure Group members – although we had put in writing ‘letters of dispute’ – to which Metrowater had never replied.
We formed the famous Water Pressure Group ‘Turn On’ Squad, and took out the restrictors. Then Metrowater (contractors) removed the water meters.
Water Pressure Group ‘Turn On’ Squad members then put in connections, which effectively replaced the water meters.
Metrowater contractors were then instructed to ‘permanently’ disconnect water services to some WPG members, which involved turning off the street mains, digging up the street and removing water pipes.
In broad daylight, after notifying the Council, Police, Metrowater and media – the Water Pressure Group organised the famous ‘street dig ups’ which involved up to one hundred WPG members and supporters wearing “DUMP METROWATER” sashes, and all having a turn putting our feet on the shovel helping to dig up the road.
The water pipes were replaced – concrete was then poured over the pipes, and the water supply was turned back on, all shown on national TV.
Metrowater had run out of plumbing options.
They had done their worst – we ‘undid’ it.
The result?
A law change, which the Water Pressure Group literally won ‘on the street’. Under the Local Government Act 2002, it became unlawful to disconnect water services as a means of debt enforcement.
(When the people lead – the politicians will follow?)
Back in 2004, another significant victory was achieved when the Far North District Council threatened to introduce water restriction as a means of debt enforcement.
Here I would like to give full credit to Hone Harawira and others, who helped with an intensive 2 day campaign, involving local media, which helped to stop the Council in their tracks.
‘Rita’ and ‘Peter’ the water meters were taken up North, and we had street meetings in Kaitaia and Kaikohe where I showed locals how to unrestrict water meters if the Far North District Council went ahead.
We had the support of Public Health Officials, including the local Medical Officer of Health, against restricting water supplies and putting the health, particularly of children at risk.
www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=6500446
www.northernadvocate.co.nz/local/news/health-risk-feared-as-fndc-eyes-water-lines/3613791/
The Far North District Council backed off.
So folks!
If your water meter is restricted using a clamp – here is how you fix it.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzccHIB3paQ
(Thank you ‘Sofia’ for helping to ‘spread the word’. Much appreciated.
Other You Tube clips will be made showing how to remove restrictors in both ‘in-line’ and ‘manifold’ meters.)
Penny Bright
The Standard: ‘Key’s Midas touch – Selling asset sales is a hard job even for Key’ + my comments
thestandard.org.nz/keys-midas-touch/
Key’s Midas touch
Written By: r0b – Date published: 5:08 pm, June 11th, 2011 – 15 comments
Categories: john key, leadership – Tags: john armstrong, midas touch
Armstrong is back in fine Key-lovin form today:
Selling asset sales is a hard job even for Key
Such is John Key’s Midas touch, he could probably sell ice-cubes to Eskimos – and at a premium price.
Oh please. Did Key sell mining to the New Zealand public? No.
Did Key manage to sell his position on s59 reform in the smacking referendum? That would be No.
Did Key’s personal endorsement manage to sell Melissa Lee to the Mt Albert electorate? That would be a Hell No.
Has Key sold Maori on the re-branded foreshore and seabed legislation? The Mana Party says No.
Did Key sell Auckland on the Supercity merger, or Christchurch on CERA?
Public opinion says No, but they were forced through any way.
Did Key sell national standards to teachers, or labour market “reforms” to workers?
See above, No.
Did Key in his HardTalk interview sell our 100% Pure brand to the UK?
Catastrophically No.
Did Key sell his cycleway to the world? Hah hah No.
Key remains popular, it is true, but it’s very seldom that he manages to sell we the people something that we don’t want. His popularity depends on not picking fights with public opinion.
The issues on which he does succeed – selling useless budgets, tax cuts for the rich and the GST swindle – are those where most of the public have little interest, or where the media do the sales job for him.
In short, Armstrong’s belief in Key’s “Midas touch” is a product of his imagination. He might do well to reflect on the true moral of the Midas story. In trying to acquire more and more wealth, Midas deprived himself of everything that really mattered.”
___________________________________________________________________
MY COMMENT:
errrr….. check out the only polls that really count – election (by-election) results and think again?
How come in the ‘safe’ National seats encompassed by the Botany and Pakuranga electorates – there was only a 36% turnout in the Botany by-election and 30% turnout in the Howick by-election?
How come in the Botany by-election more (former?) National Party voters stayed home (9000) than voted (8000) for National’s Jami-Lee Ross?
Did you notice ACT received less than 700 votes in the Botany by-election?
Where were the opinion polls that predicted THAT result prior to the election?
Not a particularly good look for the National “A” Team, and National “B” (Bra$h) Team – hoping to put together the next ‘Rogernomic$ Coalition Government?
Penny Bright
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com
12 June 2011 at 11:36 am “This botany by election example is bunkum. By elections aren’t an indication of the real feeling at all.”
Really ‘oscar’? errrr…. silly me.
I thought actual ELECTIONS are where the voting public actually decide who obtains public office?
Perhaps you missed this analysis of the Botany by-election result by NZ Herald’s Chief Political Reporter – John Armstrong?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10710626
Botany byelection loss holds silver lining for Labour Party
By John Armstrong 5:30 AM Monday Mar 7, 2011
At last, Phil Goff has something to smile about.
Exactly why the Labour leader is smiling might not seem immediately obvious given that National’s Jami-Lee Ross won Saturday’s Botany byelection in a canter, securing almost double the number of votes of his Labour counterpart.
The answer is that everything is relative in politics. Labour did better than it hoped. National did not fare as well as it would have expected.
Of some worry to National will be the bleeding of its votes to the New Citizen Party, which picked up 10.5 per cent of the total candidate vote and pushed Act into fourth place.
If replicated in electorates across Auckland with large populations of New Zealand Chinese, such splintering of centre-right support could see large piles of wasted votes if the new party fails to reach the 5 per cent threshold.
That could diminish the centre-right’s representation in Parliament by one or two seats – seats which may well be crucial for National to retain power.
It is questionable, however, how meaningful conclusions drawn from a byelection can be, let alone one as stifled by circumstances as this one. Still, the debut of the New Citizen Party and National’s failure to lift its vote would seem to pour cold water on the possibility of National securing a majority alone. The complicating factor is Saturday’s abysmally low turnout.
However, the non-vote would more likely be weighted in Labour’s favour.
The 36.6 per cent turnout – half that of a general election – meant both major parties got fewer votes than at the 2008 election.
Labour’s vote proved more robust. National’s vote halved from more than 17,000 to just over 8000. In comparison, Labour’s vote fell, but far less dramatically – from around 6500 to just over 4000. ”
___________________________________________
In my considered opinion, as a candidate in that by-election, it proved that campaigning on the issues – particularly against asset sales – was politically effective.
(Former?) National party voters get a power bill every month, and know full well that applying the ‘competitive’ model to a natural monopoly such as the supply of electricity – just duplicates resources – sets up a multiplicity of profit-making empires – and causes power prices to go up – not down.
It is also my considered opinion that the way that ‘democracy’ works in New Zealand tends to operate according to the ‘Golden Rule’ – ‘those who have the gold – make the rules’, and we tend to get the government that the majority of big business want us to have.
This is achieved through mainstream media manipulation of ‘public opinion’.
In my view, the Botany by-election results caused quite some consternation, as it was realised that asset sales were NOT a vote-winner.
So – the tactic used was to try and undermine the main political party with the stated position of opposing asset sales – the Labour Party – particularly by attacking Phil Goff’s leadership.
In my view – it was realised that National were not going to get the numbers to govern alone. As ACT under Rodney Hide’s leadership was looking unlikely to regain Epsom or the 5% Party vote threshold.
Remember – the ACT candidate in the Botany by-election got less than 700 votes.
“As for Act, Rodney Hide may not know whether to laugh or cry. The party’s candidate, Lyn Murphy, got 671 votes. ”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10710626
Next panicky move?
The Bra$h ACT takeover – which appears to have seriously backfired.
Given that the personnel and policies of National and ACT are so readily interchangeable, there is essentially no real difference between them.
National and ACT are the National “A” Team and National “B” (Bra$h) Team.
A vote for John is a vote for Don.
A vote for Don is a vote for John.
A vote for either of them is a vote for more ‘Rogernomic$’.
The more ‘shonky’ John Key is exposed as leading the corporate raid on New Zealand – (once a corporate raider – always a corporate raider?) – the more I believe that National will plummet in the polls.
John Key’s forced smile will look more strained and phoney and his eyes will look more hollow as the spin-doctored ‘ordinary bloke’ mask continues to slip………..
Penny Bright
URGENT REMINDER! MARCH/RALLY: Budget 2011 United Against Asset Sales/Cuts. SAT. 28 May 12 noon Auckland! DON’T CUT OUR FUTURE!
BREAKING NEWS! :Penny Bright, Media Spokesperson Water Pressure Group to address Watercare Board at ‘Public Forum’ Thursday 26 May 9.00am – FIRST TIME EVER!
25 May 2011
Penny Bright, Media Spokesperson Water Pressure Group to address Watercare Board at ‘Public Forum’ Thursday 26 May 9.00am – FIRST TIME EVER!
___________________________________________________
Notice of Watercare Board meeting –
26 May 2011
The May board meeting of Watercare Services Ltd will be held on 26 May 2011.
Time: 9am.
Venue: Hobson Room, Jubilee Building, 545 Parnell Road, Parnell, Auckland.
The meeting will be open to the public and the Chairman invites deputations.
Agenda
1. Apologies
2. Deputations and Public Forum
…………………….
http://www.watercare.co.nz/about-watercare/news/Pages/Notice-of-Watercare-Board-meeting—26-May2011.aspx
_____________________________________________________
25 May 2011
OPEN LETTER/ CONFIRMATION OF SUBJECT MATTER FOR THE WATER PRESSURE GROUP DEPUTATION TO THE WATERCARE SERVICES LTD BOARD MEETING 26 MAY 2011:
Dear Robert Fisher,
The subject matter for my deputation to the Watercare ‘Public Forum’ is very similar to that for which I had been granted for the CCO Strategy Review Committee Meeting which was held on 21 April 2011.
(Unfortunately, the scheduled time of the meeting was changed, and I didn’t get the message – so I didn’t attend.)
A) Request for a publicly-available ‘Register of Interests’ for all Board members of Watercare and staff employed by Watercare responsible for property and procurement.
B) A request for the following details of all consultants and private contractors employed by Watercare; including the names of the consultants/contractors; scope, value and terms(length) of contracts, to be made publicly-available.
C) Clarification as to whether there is a central ‘Register of Contracts’ held by Watercare; where is it held, and who at Auckland Council is responsible for double-checking that it is accurate and up to date.
D)The following resolution of Water Pressure Group members, was raised and passed on to the Auckland Council Governing Board meeting on Tuesday 24 May 2011:
AUCKLAND COUNCIL GOVERNING BODY MEETING 24 MAY 2011
WATER PRESSURE GROUP MEETING 23 MAY 2011:
RESOLVED:
“THAT: Water Pressure Media Spokesperson Penny Bright to raise directly with the Governing Body of Auckland Council and the Board of Watercare Services at their upcoming meetings on 24 and 26 May 2011:
a) The persecution and harassment of Water Pressure Group members to please cease forthwith; all outstanding disputed Metrowater bills to be waived; all court action initiated by Metrowater to cease forthwith; and all penalties such as credit restriction, charging orders over properties and the like to be lifted forthwith.
b) Water Pressure Group members request a meeting with Mayor Len Brown to discuss these and related matters, as soon as possible. “
(Please be reminded that had it not been for Water Pressure Group members, the practice of Metrowater being used as a ca$h cow, to subsidise rates thorough the rort of ‘charitable payments’, would not have been ruled ‘unacceptable’ by Parliament, and eventually phased out.
Our brave, internationally famous WPG members, who have been at the forefront since 1998 of the fight against the commercialisation and privatisation of Auckland water services – and user-charges, particularly for wastewater services, which have proved financially crippling for larger, poorer families – have been through enough.
The previous ‘combative’ track record of Metrowater which included digging up the streets to permanently disconnect water supplies form the mains; attempts by Metrowater to bankrupt WPG members over disputed bills; abuse of the ‘legal system’ to intimidate, bully and harass WPG members; the singling out of a Samoan family and attempts to auction their family home over a disputed water account; the untimely deaths of two WPG members from what we believe were Metrowater stress-related heart attacks.)
E ) WPG members, of course, are still opposed to Watercare, becoming the ‘one big Auckland water company’ – which we have been warning the public about since 1998 – because that has been the corporate agenda since the mid-1990’s, and the public have neither voted for this, nor the $upercity full stop
The model was the one used in South Australia – first ‘vertically integrate’ into ‘one big water company’ – then contract out the operation and management to United Water (100% owned by Veolia – the world’s biggest water multinational).
United Water now have seven NZ water services contracts.
But were they based on misrepresented pricing?
Did United Water put in cheaper tenders in order to get a foothold in NZ?
(Attempts to get both the NZ Parliament and the Office of the Auditor-General to investigate this matter, have to date been unsuccessful.)
F) The Water Pressure Group still want Watercare CEO Mark Ford, to be be instructed to answer these following questions, requested under the OIA, which have still never been answered.
(Revised LGOIMA request to Mark Ford, CEO of Watercare Services Ltd)
1) 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.
2) 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. ”
______________________________
3) 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:
a) 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,
b) Inform the public of Graham Wood’s former position as the former Managing Director of United Water South Australia.
4) 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.
5) 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.
6) Disclosure of all / any interests (if any) you had or may have, either pecuniary or non-pecuniary with:
a) United Water;
b) Veolia Water,
c) 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
7) All/any information from Watercare Board members, or Watercare staff in ANY capacity relating to 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.”
and/or my request to the Office of the Auditor-General to conduct such an inquiry/investigation.
Yours sincerely,
Penny Bright
Media spokesperson
Water Pressure Group
“Anti-corruption campaigner”
(Campaign Against Foreign Control in Aotearoa : CAFCA) :GARAGE SALE John’s Place, Saturday November 26th. Selling Out, Everything Must Go!
This is the cover story for the forthcoming issue of Foreign Control Watchdog. We’re circulating it in advance of publication because it’s particularly relevant in light of the Budget.
GARAGE SALE
John’s Place, Saturday November 26th. Selling Out, Everything Must Go!
– Murray Horton
Privatisation is an integral part of the strategy to turn even more of this country and its economy over to being owned and/or controlled by transnational corporations. National was so desperate to get back into power at the 2008 election that, against all its own instincts (it is called “swallowing dead rats”), it promised not to sell off any public assets in its first term in office – knowing full well that there has never been a single term National government. That term finishes this year and already National has declared its hand. To nobody’s surprise, a central plank of its policy, if re-elected on November 26th, is the partial privatisation of a number of specified State-owned Enterprises – namely the four major power generators, Solid Energy and Air New Zealand. The Government knows that privatisation, specifically of State assets, is poison to the voting public, because of the wholesale pillaging of the common wealth in the 1980s and 90s, under both Labour and National.
John Key has made a big song and dance about how private ownership will be restricted to 49% and he also promised that “Kiwi mums and dads” will be the target of the shares to be issued when these public assets will be floated. Neither of those promises stand up to any scrutiny – commentators, including Key, have admitted that even if these mythical “Kiwi mums and dads” do buy the shares, there is nothing to stop them promptly selling them to the first big corporate buyer that comes along, either from NZ Big Business or, much more likely, a transnational corporation. That is exactly what happened in the 1990s to community-owned local electricity network operators – shares were issued to their customers, who promptly became the target of offers they couldn’t refuse from corporate buyers.
Nor does 49% private ownership provide any kind of protection. All you need to do is look at the Overseas Investment Act which, despite many amendments since it was first passed in 1973, still retains the same legal definition of a foreign company – one that is more than 24.9% foreign-owned. It doesn’t matter whether that percentage is held by one or many foreign owners; if it totals anything higher than 24.9%, it is recognised as a foreign company. In other words Key is talking about accepting a level of private, inevitably foreign, ownership which is double the legal definition of a foreign company. And there is an inherently absurd contradiction in this whole “Kiwi mums and dads” nonsense – they already own these assets, because that is what public ownership means (that’s not that hard to figure out).
They have paid for them by their taxes, why should they be expected to pay for them again by buying a few shares in them and diluting their ownership to the status of a minority shareholder? And let’s take the absurdity to the next level. What if one (or more) of these newly privatised companies goes bust? So then the mum and dads become unsecured creditors, waiting at the back of the queue while the Australian-owned banks and other transnational financial corporations get their money back, as secured creditors.
Perhaps the mums and dads might get ten cents back in the dollar if they’re lucky, just like the mums and dads who entrusted their retirement savings to all the shonky finance companies. Then again they might get nothing. So wouldn’t that be a bargain? To go from owning these SOES outright as taxpayers, to maybe being “shareholders” of nothing.
It’s The Ideology, Stupid
Why does the Government want to privatise public assets? Key and English are trotting out the tired old lie that it is to reduce debt. This was used during the huge wave of State asset privatisations in the late 1980s and early 90s. It couldn’t be justified then and certainly can’t be justified now. At least Sir Roger Douglas had the decency to tell the truth. In an early 90s’ book praising him and his cronies for the selloff of State forests, Douglas said: “I am not sure we were right to use the argument that we should privatise to quit debt. We knew it was a poor argument but we probably felt it was the easiest to use politically” (“Out Of The Woods”; Reg Birchfield and Ian Grant; 1993).
New Zealand does have high foreign debt at present but the great bulk of it is private debt, not public. Of that private foreign debt around 70% is bank debt, which is only a problem for the Australian owners of our major banks, not the New Zealand taxpayer. Under Labour public debt was substantially reduced as a matter of policy priority. That trend was reversed when the global financial crisis erupted and National started borrowing large sums to keep the economy afloat during very difficult times. So, increasing public debt became a policy priority for National and a sensible one in the circumstances. As it is, NZ‘s public debt is very low compared to other high income countries; it is certainly nothing like the public debt levels of countries such as “the PIGS” (Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain) – countries with which the Government is now comparing New Zealand in a propaganda drive to panic Kiwis into accepting There Is No Alternative to privatisation. Our public debt levels provide no justification for flogging off those assets. The answer to the question is, of course, that the Government wants to privatise public assets for ideological reasons.
In fact, it’s worth remembering the following next time you see Bill English saying that the country is going to the economic dogs and therefore everything has to be flogged off and services slashed – Time (14/3/11, “Are America’s Best Days Behind Us?”, Fareed Zakaria) accompanied that cover article with a world map listing the world’s ten most prosperous countries (out of 110 surveyed in the Legatum Institute’s Index of Prosperity, which measures material wealth and quality of life). Little old NZ was ranked fifth most prosperous country in the world (the top three were Scandinavian countries; Australia was fourth, only one place ahead of us; and the US was tenth, well behind NZ). But that’s not what we’re hearing from the panicmongerers and privatisers, is it? When was the last time we heard Key or English say that NZ is the fifth most prosperous country on Earth, five places higher than the US? Usually Tory politicians trumpet to the heavens any positive mention of NZ in Time, but not a peep about this. Guess it doesn’t fit the agenda.
Privatisation By Stealth
The State-owned power companies, Solid Energy and Air New Zealand are only the beginning. There is a well advanced process of privatisation by stealth. Just to quickly summarise other affected sectors: there are public private partnerships (PPPs) being set up for infrastructure projects; the extremely lucrative workplace component of ACC is being “opened up to competition”; PPPs are being set to run education sector infrastructure; the first contract has been let for a private prison, to British transnational, Serco (in the case of both ACC and prisons, these moves continue policies started by the 1990s’ National government and stopped by Labour. And it is worth noting that private prison owners have a vested interest in crime, in keeping their “asset” filled with “product”. They don’t have any interest in promoting alternatives to prison, in a country which already has the second highest per capita rate of imprisonment in the world, behind only the US. Nor do the private owners of toll roads have any interest in promoting alternatives to road transport or the dominance of the car).
Those are all privatisation moves underway right now. In the future there is the very real prospect of Kiwibank being flogged off – not only is it ideologically unacceptable to the Tory privatisers (and Labour’s leadership of Clark and Cullen sneered at it when they were forced to establish it as part of the coalition deal with the Alliance) but it is also an extremely successful and innovative bank which is giving the big Aussie banks a run for their money at the lower end of the market. People ask: “Well what is left to sell?” because so much has already been flogged off. The answer is: plenty. Two huge sectors which the transnationals want to get their hooks into are water and local body services. Rodney Hide went to all the trouble to restructure Auckland local government for the benefit of his Big Business mates, only to have the ungrateful voters deliver the wrong result and the wrong Mayor at the 2010 local body elections. But the structure is now all in place for our biggest city to be run as a board of directors when a future more obliging Mayor and Council are in place. And why muck around with all this tiresome democracy nonsense? In 2010 the Government simply sacked ECan, Canterbury’s regional council, and installed Commissioners to run it. Dictatorships are so much more stable and predictable and deliver the desired outcomes.
But what’s wrong with privatisation? Three examples should suffice – Telecom, the Railways, Air New Zealand. You don’t need me to spell out the details of all that was wrong with their respective privatisations (necessitating renationalisation in the case of two of them). Read the Roger Award’s Judges’ Reports (http://canterbury.cyberplace.co.nz/community/CAFCA/publications/Roger/index.html) where you will find copious material, year after year, on the corporate misdeeds of both Telecom and the former Tranz Rail. People say “who cares who owns the power companies? The State-owned ones behave like bastards anyway” (and don’t I know it, I’m a customer of Meridian – which gave us a $5 rebate off our power bill for our place having no power for five days after the February earthquake. I’m pretty sure we get charged more than $5 when we actually use power for five days). True, but the solution is not to flog them off to a private owner but to enact a policy that State-owned companies supplying an essential service actually be a public service rather than profit-obsessed corporations, which are publicly-owned whilst exhibiting all the worst characteristics of privately owned Big Business corporations. That requires a political decision to change the business model of those and other State-owned Enterprises from profit to service. Both the Railways and the Post Office could have been fixed, updated and recapitalised without needing to be flogged off. They are both textbook examples of what is called socialising the losses whilst privatising the profits.
I’ll put it in individual terms that all of us can understand. If you can’t afford to pay your mortgage, you can always sell your house. Fine, you’ve cleared your debt and you’ve sold your asset. But that’s the central contradiction, isn’t it – by selling your asset you’ve no longer got a house. And you now don’t have the money to buy another one. So where will you live? You could downsize to a smaller place (where could New Zealand downsize to? Stewart Island? The Chathams?). Or you could revert to becoming a tenant – and we all know who has the power in the landlord/tenant relationship. Ownership is power. This is recognised by none other than John Key who has said that he doesn’t want New Zealanders to become tenants in their own country. Well he is doing his best to bring that about.
And there is plenty that is right with publicly-owned assets. To quote from a Council of Trade Unions’ flyer entitled “If privatisation is the answer, what was the question?”, they have many benefits, including: preventing profiteering in important services with little competition e.g. electricity, Kiwibank; ensuring essential services are provided fairly and affordably e.g. water, welfare, superannuation; providing security of services e.g. electricity, coastal shipping, public transport; social solidarity, and services which are more efficient to provide universally e.g. ACC, health; providing services and development when the private sector doesn’t e.g. Air NZ, rail, Solid Energy; and providing additional income to the Government e.g. electricity, Kiwibank; Solid Energy, Air NZ. Labour’s May 2011 policy announcement of a high profile campaign of opposition to public asset sales is a welcome move and proof that privatisation will be a key (pun intended) election issue, as it bloody well should be.
I speak from the personal experience of being a Christchurch earthquake victim and I ask you to reflect on where things would be at now if earlier governments had decided to privatise the Earthquake Commission (EQC) with its very tempting pot of billions of dollars. How do you reckon the private sector would have gone if it was in charge of the whole operation? Well, the answer to that is not hypothetical, because there are whole categories of earthquake victims who are not covered by the EQC and who are reliant on their insurance companies for repair, rebuild and/or compensation. And, no surprises here, these mostly foreign-owned insurers (and their transnational reinsurers) are principally concerned with getting a good return for their shareholders and not with providing a public service. A disaster of this magnitude can only be handled by the State, not the private sector – there are plenty of private companies involved but they are operating under the direction of the State, which has the power to declare a state of national emergency and mobilise all necessary resources. This is a core function of the State; a lot of things are just too big and important to be left to the private sector. Sure the EQC and the Government, both at local and national level, could do some things better – and I could tell you a few stories about our dealings with the earthquake bureaucracy – but (theoretically at least) they are accountable to us the voters, the people who pay their wages and who determine whether they keep their jobs or not. Private company people are only answerable to their boards of directors and shareholders. And we need to beware of what Naomi Klein has identified as “disaster capitalism”. She was referring to what happened in the aftermath of the Bush Administration’s criminally negligent “response” to the 2005 Hurricane Katrina catastrophe in New Orleans, where private firms took advantage of the circumstances as an excuse for an orgy of corporatisation and privatisation (see Jeremy Agar’s review of her book “Shock Doctrine” in Watchdog 117, April 2008, http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/17/06.htm).
Will Christchurch’s Assets Fall Victim To Disaster Capitalism?
The revelation that all of Christchurch’s publicly-owned trading assets could be in danger of being sold due to a “legal loophole” in the law establishing the new State authority to run the city whilst it is rebuilt after the earthquakes should set alarm bells ringing loudly. If that comes to pass, it would be the single biggest instance of earthquake-related looting yet seen. If such disaster capitalism is inflicted on Christchurch, that will be the “third big one” to slam into the city. And it will be the one with the most long term destructive effects.
Of course, Government Ministers have said that there is no such intention. The value of a politician’s solemn vow can be gauged from those Act MPs who publicly declared that Rodney Hide had their undying support as leader only days before he was deposed. Truth is an elastic concept in politics. Words are one thing; deeds (or, to be more precise, laws) are quite another. And having had the loophole in the Christchurch earthquake Act pointed out to it by Labour, the Government refused to plug that loophole or do anything to rectify the “oversight”, which remains in the law. And flogging off Christchurch’s assets sounds like a routine prescription from Dr Brash, Act’s new extra-Parliamentary leader, and coupmaster. There’s no secret about where he stands on the subject of public assets. His ideological soulmate, the Business Roundtable’s Roger Kerr, has already called for the sale of all or some of Christchurch’s assets to pay for the rebuild. CAFCA is sure that it’s purely coincidental that any that were sold would just happen to fall into the hands of the very same transnational corporations that make up a large part of the Business Roundtable. Ever since it branded Christchurch the “People’s Republic of Christchurch” for having the temerity to hang onto its publicly-owned assets (in social housing alone, the Christchurch City Council is the country’s second biggest landlord, after the State) the Business Roundtable and its political mouthpieces has wanted an example made of the city, and its assets flogged off.
If central or local government is foolish enough to try to go down this path, they will be buying a fight. In 2006 the Christchurch City Council came a spectacular gutser when public opposition – in which CAFCA played a leading role in setting up the Keep Our Port Public coalition – and a shrewd strategic intervention by the Port of Otago thwarted its cunning plan to hock off the Lyttelton Port Company to a Hong Kong transnational corporation (Watchdog 112, August 2006, “Lyttelton Port Company Sale Dead In The Water: We’ve Won The Battle, But Not Yet The War To Keep Our Port Public”, by Murray Horton, http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/12/01.htm).
And if Ministers want ideas on how to finance the massive rebuild, start by implementing the proposal to slap a small earthquake recovery levy on higher income earners. Reverse the totally unnecessary tax cuts that were a blatant hand out to the rich. And crack down hard on transnational corporate tax dodgers who suck extortionate profits out of the country whilst not paying their fair share, such as the likes of the Big Four Australian-owned banks who settled with the Inland Revenue Department in December 2009 for $2.2 billion, the biggest tax avoidance case in NZ’s history (“IRD Delivers Best Possible Christmas Present To Long Suffering Kiwi Taxpayers”, CAFCA press release, 23/12/09, http://canterbury.cyberplace.co.nz/community/CAFCA/publications/Statements/xmaspresent.html). There’s no shortage of money in the country – it’s just a question of who has got it, and of ensuring that it stays here to be used for the public benefit.
Crafar Farms Bid Rejection Sets Precedent
Privatisation (either full or partial) of public assets is only part of the big picture, which is that of transnational corporate recolonisation of Aotearoa. Of course the foreign takeovers which attract the highest public attention and opposition are those involving rural land. The specifics change from decade to decade – it used to be coastal land, then it was South Island high country stations bought as hobby farms for the likes of foreign celebrities such as Shania Twain, and forests were all the go during the 1990s’ forestry boom (whatever happened to that?) – but the issue remains the same. There has been a quantum change in the past year or so, namely agribusiness transnationals snapping up the current engine room of the economy, namely dairy farms. The most notorious of these was, of course, the attempt by the Chinese Natural Dairy Corporation to buy up the bankrupt North Island dairy farm empire of the lamentable Allan Crafar. As you know this was one of the few (and certainly the most high profile in recent years) foreign investment applications to be actually rejected by the rubberstamp Overseas Investment Office (OIO), in December 2010, because it was deemed not to be in the national interest and because the individuals owning and/or controlling Natural Dairy did not meet the “good character” criteria of the Overseas Investment Act. There were certainly plenty of characters in Natural Dairy’s bid, on both sides of the proposed sale – indeed, scriptwriters for B movies would struggle to invent characters such as May Wang and Allan Crafar himself, who was living proof that every man and his dog rushed into the dairying goldrush and that, in his case, the dog would have done a better job – but the lack of good character has been obvious from the outset. So the decision to refuse permission was an absolute no brainer, any other outcome would have been a travesty, and would have caused major public uproar and further exacerbated the political split within the highest ranks of the Government and its supporters on the issue of the sale of farms to foreigners. The Natural Dairy bid was just too egregious for even the Tories and their mates to stomach.
CAFCA sees this as a breakthrough precedent for the OIO, as we’re not aware of any previous refusals by it on the grounds of lack of good character (and if there have been, they were on nothing like this scale). We have been making lack of good character complaints to the OIO, and its predecessor the Overseas Investment Commission (OIC), since the late 1990s. One of the most recent involved the 2009 collapse of Cedenco, caused directly by the legal problems of its American owners. Every single one of our complaints was rejected by the OIO or the OIC. For the details on this see “Good Fellas: The OIO And The Nature Of Being A ‘Good Character’” by Quentin Findlay, in Foreign Control Watchdog 124, August 2010 http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/24/02.htm and his earlier article in Watchdog 123, May 2010, “Monkeys With Rubber Stamps: The Overseas Investment Office ”, http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/23/08.htm . Also in that same issue: “Waste Management: Another ‘Good Character’ Case From The CAFCA Archives”, Murray Horton, http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/23/09.htm and “Tommy Suharto: One Who Was Never Put To ‘Good Character’ Test”, Murray Horton, http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/23/10.htm ). Nor was it only CAFCA that was getting the run around from the country’s foreign investment rubberstampers. Back in 2000 Ministers in the Labour government overrode advice from the OIC and refused permission for Brierleys to sell its stake in Sealord to foreign fishing companies. We got the whole file from the OIC and Government, which revealed that the OIC consistently rejected advice and evidence from relevant Ministries that several of the applicants did not meet the good character provisions (“Sealord Sale: OIC Exposed”, Bill Rosenberg, Watchdog 95, December 2000, http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/95/8sealo.htm ). So there is a long, long history of the OIC and OIO rejecting any complaints (which were always backed up with evidence) about the lack of good character of various applicants. In the early 1990s the OIC approved Tommy Suharto, a notorious criminal, to buy Lilybank Station in the Mackenzie Country. Whenever CAFCA raised this subject their only “defence” was that they approved him before the good character requirement was included in the Overseas Investment Act.
The Natural Dairy/Crafar Farms three ring circus highlights the fact that “lack of good character” is one of the only grounds for which an application can be rejected (and it only covers the “good character” of the individuals involved, not the company itself), and the OIO has fought tooth and nail to fight off any such complaints in the past, as recently as 2009. What is different this time is that this application became the hottest of political hot potatoes, with the Prime Minister saying that he didn’t want to see New Zealanders becoming tenants in our own land (language that no senior Labour figure has ever used; we’re delighted that John Key has seen fit to appropriate a phrase that CAFCA has been using for years). How galling it must have been for Maurice Williamson, as one of the Ministers tasked with deciding on the application, to have to refuse it. As recently as September 2010 Williamson was denigrating opponents of foreign takeovers, specifically those involving Chinese companies such as Natural Dairy, as “racists” (“If All Else Fails, Call Them Racists”, CAFCA press release, 3/9/10, http://canterbury.cyberplace.co.nz/community/CAFCA/publications/Statements/CallThemRacists.htm). As far as that side issue is concerned, CAFCA wishes to make clear that our opposition to Natural Dairy’s bid would be the same if it was owned by Americans, Australians or Britons (or any others of our “white kith and kin”). The fact that it is Chinese-owned is irrelevant to us.
The Crafar/Natural Dairy soap opera was only the most recent example of this issue causing great disquiet within the ranks of National supporters and voters, not to mention a publicly noticeable difference of opinion at the highest ranks of the National government. In September 2010 Bill English was forced to announce that, despite the opposition from himself and Treasury, the Government accepted a review of the Overseas Investment Act that did not, as predicted, liberalise it further but tacked on a couple of cosmetic measures to give the appearance of toughening it up in relation to land sales (for details, see Watchdog 125, December 2010, “Government Happy To Be Doormat For Transnationals: But Tries To Quarantine Hot Issue Of Land Sales”, by Murray Horton. http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/25/01.htm).
No Let Up From Agribusiness Transnationals
However, another Chinese transnational, presumably one more presentable than Natural Dairy, has put in a bid to buy the Crafar farms and that has attracted nothing like the same level of political or media disapproval, so we’re definitely not out of the woods yet. Indeed the “bad characters” of Natural Dairy are not taking their rejection lying down. In April 2011 it was announced that they were in no hurry to surrender, as ordered, the four Crafar farms that they’d already bought (for which they had confidently expected retrospective approval by the OIO, a routine procedure from that most obliging institution) but they plan to launch legal action to legitimise their bid to buy all 20 Crafar farms. The OIO is thus in the unaccustomed position of actually having to contemplate enforcing the foreign investment law that it is charged with administering, rather than simply holding the door open for its transnational corporate clients. Watch this space.
And the relentless takeover of our agricultural sector has progressed to the next level with the bid by yet more Chinese transnationals, aided by some minor NZ partners tacked on to make it more politically acceptable, for PGG Wrightson, which is a major NZ agribusiness. The more perceptive commentators have pointed out that the attraction is not the company per se, but the fact that it has the commercial rights to 90% of the technology on which NZ’s grass seed manufacturing is based. To quote a seed company director speaking to a farmers’ paper: “Having this technology controlled overseas was ‘like selling 5,000 farms to overseas buyers. Everyone was up in arms when it looked like 20 Crafar farms would be sold to the Chinese, but this is much bigger’” (New Zealand Farmers Weekly, 17/1/11, “Fears For Gemstone Of Seed Technology”, Alan Williams).
Every time there is controversy about some particular foreign land purchase, the apologists say: “Well, they can’t take the land with them”. Quite – and why would they want to, when they can own it here and milk it for all its worth (quite literally, in the case of dairy farms). What a lazy argument. Ask Maori what happened when Britain colonised NZ – the Poms didn’t take the land with them, did they, but that didn’t seem to help Maori one bit. It’s rather like saying Telecom can’t take all the phones with it. Once again, why would they want to? They’re happy to leave the phones here and take the money with them. If we don’t watch out, NZ’s agriculture will go the way of the wine industry, which did all the hard work to establish itself as a keystone part of the economy and a player on the world scene, only to be progressively bought out by transnational corporations and to now have been reduced to the level of a being a bulk grape grower for foreign booze giants. They don’t care if there is overproduction here, in regions suchas Marlborough, and a consequent slump in the industry, because they can just concentrate on their more profitable operations in other countries. That is the essence of being a transnational corporation.
And land sales to foreigners, despite being so high profile (it’s the one aspect of the issue that TV news consistently covers, because it offers visuals) are only part of – an important part but only a part, nonetheless – of a much bigger picture. They pale into insignificance compared to the transnational corporate takeover of just about every sector of the NZ economy that you can think of. At most, land sales total several hundred million dollars per year (the Natural Dairy bid for the Crafar farms was touted as being for $1.5 billion but there was never any proof that it had anything like that money). Just one commercial takeover can be worth several billion dollars. I am not downplaying the issue of land sales, they are what get the strongest response from New Zealanders of all shades of political opinion, but they need to be placed into context. Who owns and profits from a particular farm or even a number of farms (those Crafar farms again) is a matter of local or regional significance, at most. Who owns and profits from our banks, supermarkets, media companies, telecommunications companies, airlines, transport companies, insurance companies, etc, etc, etc, is a matter of national significance which affects everyone in the country, and in some cases it is a matter of international significance.
The Owners Set The House Rules, Not The Guests
The Government is trying to reconcile the irreconciliable. On the one hand it is full speed ahead to privatise public assets and throw the door open to yet more transnational corporate domination of the NZ economy (for example it is still determined to give carte blanche to mining companies, both on and off-shore). Those are National’s true blue colours and exactly what you would expect from the party of Big Business. But on the other hand it is wrestling with trying to control the massive public and political opposition to the specific issue of land sales to foreigners. CAFCA calls upon the Government to instruct the OIO to cast its net much wider than that of “lack of good character” (which really does just add insult to injury) and rigorously assess all foreign investment applications to see if they really are in the national interest. The rejection of Natural Dairy’s bid for the Crafar farms has set a precedent that a foreign bid to buy up a significant chunk of the current engine room of the NZ economy (namely, dairy farming) has been rejected. This sends the message that NZ is not just there to be looted by any passing opportunist. The Government now needs to demonstrate some political will, show some balls, and lay down some much tougher house rules for those who wish to be guests in our home. This is one of the issues, in all its various manifestations, that needs to be front and centre in this year’s election campaign – because it boils down to who owns, controls and governs this country? The people who actually live here or the corporations who see it as just one among many pins on their boardroom map of branch offices? CAFCA has no doubt as to which side we’re on and we know that we have plenty of others with us. That is what worries the collaborators and ideologues who want to sell out their own people. Good, we want them to be worried and they have every reason to be. Because that sound you can hear is the sound of people waking up to what is going on and saying: “We’ve had a gutsfull!”
CAFCA
Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa
Box 2258, Christchurch, New Zealand
UN Health Agency’s Independence Compromised By Links To Companies -Group
UN Health Agency’s Independence Compromised By Links To Companies -Group
By John Revill, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
ZURICH -(Dow Jones)- A group of global civil society organizations has written to the World Health Organization to raise concerns that the U.N.’s links to companies such as Nestle SA (NESN.VX) and Coca Cola Co. (KO) are leading to conflicts of interest and compromising the international body’s independence.
Corporate Accountability International, which represents 100 organizations from 24 countries, said many companies used their involvement in U.N. programs to “bluewash” their activities and ignore environmental and other guidelines.
The group raised its concerns in a letter it delivered to Margaret Chan, the WHO director general, at the 64th World Health Assembly, which opened in Geneva on Wednesday.
The letter urged Dr. Chan to ask U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon to establish safeguards to prevent corporate conflicts of interest.
It also wants the U.N. to withdraw its support for the CEO Water Mandate, an initiative designed to assist companies develop and implement water sustainability policies and practices.
“Agencies such as the WHO must ensure they are truly protecting our health, our food and our water,” said Mark Hays, senior researcher with Corporate Accountability International.
“If U.N. bodies act as if they have an open-door policy for transnational corporations, there is a huge risk that global policies will be distorted to protect their bottom line,” Hays said.
A spokeswoman for the World Health Organization could not be immediately reached for comment.
The group is concerned about the influence companies could have on the WHO as it implements its Millennium Development Goals, which set benchmarks for improving access to drinking water and sanitation, and the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases.
It is concerned about a proposal to create a World Health Forum–a multi- stakeholder body that would allow the active participation of global food and agribusiness corporations in drafting policy.
“This new proposal risks undermining the WHO’s independence and effectiveness, and increases the power of the already hugely powerful corporate players that dominate global food nutrition and health policy,” said Patti Rundall, policy director for Baby Milk Action, a member of Corporate Accountability International.
Commercial interests were also interfering with public health on the issue of access to clean, safe water, the group said.
This week corporations involved with the CEO Water Mandate are meeting in Copenhagen to discuss efforts to assess water risks within the corporate sector.
The CEO Water Mandate is a business initiative housed within the UN Global Compact, created in 2007, with members including Coca Cola and Nestle and water companies corporations such as Veolia Environnement SA (VE).
The official mission of the CEO Water Mandate is to deal with what some say is an emerging global water crisis by gathering business leaders together to advance water sustainability.
But the leading corporate endorsers have business models ultimately based upon the premise that water should be a high-priced commodity to be bought and sold, the CAI said.
“From the start, the creation of the CEO Water Mandate was a public relations maneuver used by water corporations,” said Richard Girard with the Polaris Institute. “These corporations seek big profits from access to water at people’s expense.
“As long as corporations with a vested interest in ensuring their profits have insider access to U.N. policy makers, people’s right to water and the lives of millions of families will continue to be at risk.”
The group said an independent review raised concerns about the U.N. ability to make sure its corporate partners are meeting their own voluntary guidelines and aren’t merely using their association with the U.N. as “bluewashing.”
“It is far too easy for global corporations to use the U.N. as cover for business as usual,” said Hays.
“Unless the UN adopts stronger oversight over such partnerships, how will the right hand ever know what the left hand is doing? The stakes are too high to simply trust that corporations know what is good for us,” he said.
-By John Revill, Dow Jones Newswires; +41 43 443 8042 ; john.revill@ dowjones.com
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stockmarketnewsstoryprint.aspx?storyid=201105181455dowjonesdjonline000491
—
Mark Hays
Senior Researcher
Corporate Accountability International
202-742-5853
mhays@stopcorporateabuse.org
7 May 2011
COMMENT I MADE (YET TO BE PUBLISHED) ON JOHN ARMSTRONG’S ARTICLE:
www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10723919
“Elements of farce to Brash’s outsider status”
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Very few people I spoke to recently, in the Remuera, Newmarket and Parnell shopping centres – were aware of the Auckland (‘Supercity’) proposed 4.9% rate increase.
I was distributing a postcard, addressed to PM John Key, which people could sign, pledging to consider not paying this proposed 4.9% rate increase:
“Where are the ‘economies of scale’ resulting from abolishing our eight former councils and replacing them with this ‘corporate controlled organisation’?
National promised to ‘consult with Aucklanders one the findings of the Royal Commission were known:
www.national.org.nz/files/2008/local_government_policy.pdf
You didn’t. Citizens were denied our right to a ‘binding poll’ and now Auckland is being run ‘like a BIG business, by Big business, for BIG business’.
Bigger contract$ for fewer but bigger contractors? Serving whose interests?
The ‘books’ are NOT open.
We don’t know the name of the consultants/contractors; the scope, term and value of these contracts.
WHO IS IN CHARGE? Where is the ‘due diligence’, ‘cost-benefit analysis’ and ‘transparency?
CUT rates by cutting out contractors and bring core Council services back ‘in-house’! ”
Penny Bright
www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10723919
Elements of farce to Brash’s outsider status
Brash’s case is another development in an ever-evolving system of minority government running smack into the Westminster tradition. Photo / Janna Dixon
If the law is an ass, then the rules of Parliament are sometimes as stubborn and stupid as a pack of mules.
The inflexibility of the institution was amply demonstrated in farcical fashion on Tuesday when Don Brash held a press conference after chairing Act’s weekly caucus meeting for the first time.
Despite there being countless meeting rooms within the parliamentary complex, Brash and his media entourage had to decamp to the offices of the legal firm Chapman Tripp several blocks away.
The reason? Brash may well be the leader of a parliamentary party again but as far as the authorities are concerned he is not an MP and can’t use parliamentary resources.
Things become even sillier on discovery that Brash could have held court in front of the media in Act’s caucus room. There just happens to be an exemption for caucus rooms because non-MPs such as party presidents frequently attend caucus meetings.
In Act’s case, however, its room is far too small to cater for the hordes of media feasting on all things Brash. Rodney Hide’s office nearby would have been big enough – but that room comes under the ambit of ministerial services, another slow-to-adjust branch of the bureaucracy.
Things are even more inconsistent in Brash’s case because he is a former MP and is thus entitled to enter the parliamentary chamber and watch proceedings from special seats to the left of the Speaker.
Brash did just that this week and intends doing so on most Tuesdays when Parliament is sitting, no doubt as an in-your-face reminder to senior National MPs of Act’s intention to be much more aggressive in differentiating itself from its centre-right ally.
Brash’s pre-election position as a “leader outside Parliament” is not without precedent. The Greens’ Russel Norman did a two-year stint as such. However, with Act part of the current governing arrangement, Brash’s halfway-house status has got quite a few constitutional knickers in a twist.
Some happily so. Labour has raised breach of privilege questions with the Speaker about the acceptability of the Prime Minister “taking direction” on ministerial appointments from someone outside Parliament.
Lockwood Smith has yet to respond – a sign he does not consider this to be a matter of pressing importance.
All ministers ultimately serve at the Prime Minister’s pleasure. John Key long ago vetoed any prospect of Act’s Sir Roger Douglas joining his ministry. Neither was he willing to accept the inexperienced Hilary Calvert as part of the latest revolving-door round of changes to how Act fills its entitlement to two ministers outside the Cabinet.
Those conditions made something of a nonsense of Labour’s claim that Key was beholden to Brash. It may well be a breach of privilege for an outsider to “intimidate” an MP. Key may think a number of things of Brash. Feeling intimidated will not be one of them. Still, it was worth a try on Labour’s part.
When it comes to constitutional niceties, the more important question is whether Brash’s not being an MP weakens ministerial and parliamentary accountability. The buck still stops with the minister, however. If there was some catastrophe in an Act-held portfolio as a result of meddling by Brash, the Prime Minister could still only sack the relevant Act minister. But that is no different from current practice. Judgment on the leader would rest in the court of public opinion – as it does now.
What we have in Brash’s case is another development in an ever-evolving system of minority government running smack into the Westminster tradition.
As has been the case with other MMP-produced anomalies, New Zealand’s informal constitution will adapt.
The bigger headache is Act’s. Its leader is deprived of one of a leader’s normal platforms. The onus is on deputy leader John Boscawen as the party’s designated leader in Parliament to make sure Act does not look rudderless while Brash takes to the road to drum up support.
That such voter backing will largely have to come at National’s expense has seen the major party quietly downplay the chances of any resurrection of Act’s fortunes.
Current circumstances are seen as being very different from those that drove Brash’s remarkable turnaround in National’s fortunes in 2004 on the back of his Orewa speech on race.
Much of the anger provoked by Labour’s so-called political correctness has since dissipated. The foreshore and seabed imbroglio has been sorted. Brash’s economic prescription is seen as unsaleable.
National may be right. The polling that Brash commissioned to reinforce the grounds for his coup is understood to show that under his leadership Act would draw support at a level of around 5 to 6 per cent compared with the roughly 2 per cent willing to vote for a Hide-led party.
This puts Act above the 5 per cent threshold – but it falls a long way short of the 15 per cent Brash has talked of securing.
National’s polling is said to show Act’s basement-level support has not shifted one iota since Brash took the helm.
Brash’s answer to Key’s painting of him as an extremist is typically bold. His aim is to bust Act out of the niche party ghetto and attract a wider audience. His first step in looking more moderate is to stress he is only campaigning on much the same manifesto he did with National in 2005.
Act MPs and the party’s board will nut out a revised election strategy next weekend. As a minimum Act wants to win enough seats so that National has to rely on it to govern.
The first priority, however, is to smooth feathers within Act which were hugely ruffled by the brutal nature of Brash’s takeover.
The second priority is to fast-track John Banks’ selection as Act’s Epsom candidate. That is seen as necessary to give voters the confidence that a party vote for Act will not be a wasted vote. Only then will Act’s support start to climb.
At some point Brash will deliver what he will hope to be a big-bang, agenda-setting speech. Still, rolling Hide was easy. For Brash, the hard part begins now.
NO SELLOFF OF CHRISTCHURCH’S PUBLICLY-OWNED ASSETS!-Looters Stay Away – Murray Horton (CAFCA)
Chief Reporter
NO SELLOFF OF CHRISTCHURCH’S PUBLICLY-OWNED ASSETS!
Looters Stay Away
The revelation that all of Christchurch’s publicly-owned trading assets could be in danger of being sold due to a “legal loophole” in the law establishing the new State authority to run the city whilst it is rebuilt after the earthquakes should set alarm bells ringing loudly. If that comes to pass, it would be the single biggest instance of earthquake-related looting yet seen. American writer Naomi Klein coined the phrase “disaster capitalism” in the wake of the Bush Administration’s criminally negligent response to the 2005 Hurricane Katrina catastrophe in New Orleans, where Big Business and its political mouthpieces used the situation as an excuse for an orgy of corporatisation and privatisation. If such disaster capitalism is inflicted on Christchurch, that will be the “third big one” to slam into the city. And it will be the one with the most long term destructive effects.
Of course, Government Ministers have said that there is no such intention. The value of a politician’s solemn vow can be gauged from those Act MPs who only days ago publicly declared that Rodney Hide had their undying support as leader. Truth is an elastic concept in politics. And flogging off Christchurch’s assets sounds like a routine prescription from Dr Brash, Act’s new leader and coupmaster. There’s no secret about where he stands on the subject of public assets. And Brash’s ideological soulmate, the Business Roundtable’s Roger Kerr, has already called for the sale of all or some of Christchurch’s assets to pay for the rebuild. CAFCA is sure that it’s purely coincidental that any that were sold would just happen to fall into the hands of the very same transnational corporations that make up a large part of the Business Roundtable. Ever since it branded Christchurch the “People’s Republic of Christchurch” for having the temerity to hang onto its publicly-owned assets (in social housing alone, the Christchurch City Council is the country’s second biggest landlord, after the State) the Business Roundtable and its political mouthpieces has wanted an example made of the city and its assets flogged off.
If central or local government is foolish enough to try to go down this path, they will be buying a fight. In 2006 the City Council came a spectacular gutser when public opposition and a shrewd strategic intervention by the Port of Otago thwarted its cunning plan to hock off the Lyttelton Port Company to a Hong Kong transnational corporation.
And if Ministers want ideas on how to finance the massive rebuild, start by implementing the proposal to slap a small earthquake recovery levy on higher income earners. Reverse the tax cuts that were a blatant hand out to the rich. And crack down hard on transnational corporate tax dodgers who suck extortionate profits out of the country whilst not paying their fair share (the likes of the Big Four Australian-owned banks who settled with IRD in December 2009 for $2.2 billion, the biggest tax avoidance case in NZ’s history). There’s no shortage of money in the country – it’s just a question of who has got it, and of ensuring that it stays here to be used for the public benefit.
Murray Horton
Secretary/Organiser
CAFCA
Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa
Box 2258, Christchurch, New Zealand
MARCH FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE.Sunday, May 1, 2pm, QEII Square, Downtown, Queen St, Auckland: ‘JOHN KEY IS NOT WORKING FOR NEW ZEALAND!’
Sunday, May 1, 2pm, QEII Square, Downtown, Queen St, Auckland
MARCH FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE. JOHN KEY IS NOT WORKING FOR NEW ZEALAND.
A new Coalition of community groups, churches and unions has been formed. Our slogan is Social Justice (meeting occured on the 29th March 2011).
Our aim is to challenge the policies of John Key and the National/Act/Maori party Government.
We believe they are bankrupt and are not serving the interests of the majority of New Zealanders.
We are organising a MASS MOBILISATION of ordinary Kiwis on SUNDAY 1ST MAY.
Also more action when National announces the BUDGET on 19th May 2011. From Cairo to London ordinary people are challenging the Free Market perscription from government cuts to privatisation/asset sales. New Zealanders are angry about GST, milk prices and secret Trade deals.. About cuts to Early Childhood education and privatisation of electricity.
Meredydd Barrar, spokesperson says, “Enough is enough. Recent government announcements about cuts and a Budget that will certainly condemn the majority of New Zealanders to relative poverty is not acceptable. Children and struggling families as well as students looking to further their higher education will be penalised. There is a latent anger in New Zealnd at the moment. We aim to translate it into action. Nationals policies of cut backs and austerity measures will increase the gap between rich and poor which is already the 6th highest in the OECD.
We believe this is unacceptable and uncivilised. New Zealanders deserve better than this bankrput economic philosophy that only seems to make bankers, corporates and speculators richer”. For more info call CSJ on 098366389; 0212106720 or email capwaitakere
[Water News] Veolia rethinks US contract ops
21 April 2011From: Mary Grant <mgrant@fwwatch.org>Date: April 20, 2011 10:19:23 AM EDTSubject: [Water News] Veolia rethinks US contract opsBecause of public opposition, Veolia Water North America is shifting its water privatization strategy again. This time to narrow contracts (for example, metering contracts, deals to manage capital improvement plans; and management but not operation contracts).Background:In the late 1990s, it targeted big cities.In the early to mid 2000s, after public opposition and major failures, it shifted its sights to smaller and medium-sized communities.In the late 2000s, it shift back to larger cities hoping to take advantage of the fiscal crisis.Now, because of continued public resistance to privatization, it is pursuing smaller-scope contracts with large cities.This is a victory — the company apparently no longer thinks its viable to target leases and long-term contracts of entire water and sewer systems in the United States.Note 1: This differs sharply from the company’s global water strategy, which is still focused on getting long-term concessions (per its latest presentation to investors); but, as our new report notes, the company hasn’t been very successful at getting these types of deals anywhere in the world, so it may eventually refocus its international water efforts on these more circumscribed contracts.Note 2: Veolia is also focused on industrial market – oil, gas, automotive clients. This month, it got a contract with Southern Pacific Resources to treat produced water in Northern Alberta’s dirty tar sands.Veolia rethinks US contract ops
- From: Vol 12, Issue 4 (April 2011)
- Category: General
- Region: Americas
- Country: United States
- Related Companies: Veolia Water North America
Small community contracts aren’t giving the French giant the kind of growth it needs in the US market. Is the solution to target bigger cities with a new kind of more restricted, performance-based contract?
Veolia Water North America is looking towards new contracting models as a means of squeezing more growth out of the US outsourced municipal operations sector. GWI’s annual survey of the top six contract operations companies shows that the total value of the market grew by 4.6% to $1.69 billion in 2010. This figure includes the impact of American Water’s acquisition of EMC; without it the growth rate would have been in the region of 1%. With growth of just 1.7% acheived in 2009, it is clear that the contract operations market is struggling to keep ahead of inflation.
Veolia Water North America CEO Laurent Auguste believes that the problem is that customers find it difficult to understand how private operators add value. “The challenge of water outsourcing and publicprivate partnerships in the US has been the lack of recognition of what the private sector can bring. Very often we go for the full outsourcing which is a black box. It does not give recognition of what we do,” he explains. He believes Veolia should slice up its proposition, to offer individual services where the value to the client is clear for all to see.“We need a performance-based approach and that is what we are trying to promote. It is about being able to commit on performance and being rewarded for the actual performance. It is not about just being advisors and getting a fee but getting a share of the value that we can get for the client. That proposition should make it easier to engage the public sector.”The first example of the new type of contract Veolia Water North America is looking to pursue is expected to be agreed within the next few weeks. The Chicagobased company will work alongside the existing utility staff to manage the capital programme and operations. There will be no staff transfer, but Veolia will get a share of the benefits if the cooperation exceeds its targets. “We are completely aligned with them. It is a different model which retains public control, while enabling the utility to tap into the dynamism of the private sector.“I hope that this will be something that will enable use to launch a new approach to the market in North America.”Until 2002 Veolia Water North America’s predecessor company, US Filter, maintained a large business development team targeting big cities. After the city of New Orleans rejected plans to outsource water and sewer services in 2002, the company downgraded its market development activities, tacitly accepting that there were not going to be any more big city outsourcing contracts. Instead the focus moved to smaller communities grappling with high operating costs. However these make for thin pickings and can require as much political work as big cities before they get the go-ahead. By taking on contracts with a narrower scope for larger cities, Auguste hopes to increase the growth rate.“For mayors, it is difficult to say that ‘we will bring a private company to run our water, and transfer our staff’. There is also the misunderstanding about acquiring the water resources. We need to make it easier for mayors to go for the right deals. We do not always need to be the operator to share with them some of the best practices.”Overall Auguste is confident that the experience of running water utilities all over the world in a competitive environment means that the Veolia can add value to any aspect of utility operations. The challenge is to package this expertise in such a way that US municipal water utilities can take advantage of them. “There are huge and growing needs and I am convinced that we are part of the solution. But how do we match the needs and the solution?” The Growing Blue inititiative (see opposite) is also part of the strategy of helping mayors think creatively about solutions to their water problems.________________________Mary GrantResearcherFood & Water Watch1616 P Street NW, Suite 300Washington, DC 20036_______________________________________________
Water-News mailing list
Water-News@fwwatch.org
-
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 
the more i have to read ur incessant viarreah (verbal diarreah) the more I start to dislike your comments Penny. It’s almost as if you don’t actually make any points but post many non sequiters wrapped up in a question.
This botany by election example is bunkum. By elections aren’t an indication of the real feeling at all.