Paris marks a year of public water with price cut!
www.globalwaterintel.com/news/2011/2/paris-marks-year-public-water-price-cut.html?source=email
Paris marks a year of public water with price cut
Published 13th January 2011
Water prices in Paris are set to drop this spring, a year after the city took management of its water distribution system out of the hands of the private sector.
The true extent of the water tariff cut will only be known in March when the city council has definitive results on municipal authority Eau de Paris’ finances, but it is believed to be likely to be between 5% and 10%. Water prices in the capital are already well below the national average.
The city took control of its own water services in December 2009 after a contract with Veolia and Suez Environnement expired. Eau de Paris said its performance since then indicates a yearly operating surplus of about €40 million from water services, on a turnover of €230 million.
The Paris council also has ambitions to sell supplies to towns in the city’s suburbs from 2012.
PRESS RELEASE: Botany by-election candidate – Penny Bright 13 January 2011
13 January 2010
PRESS RELEASE: Botany by-election candidate – Penny Bright
“Reported comments from Prime Minister John Key, suggesting that Botany is a safe National seat, may be a little premature,” says judicially-recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters, Penny Bright.
“May I respectfully suggest that the voting public of the Botany electorate are not ‘taken for granted’?
Perhaps John Key needs to be reminded that the highest voting candidate in Auckland Council’s Howick ward (which covers the Botany electorate), was Sharon Stewart, who successfully stood as a politically non-aligned ‘Independent’.”
“Sharon Stewart received 23,716 votes compared to Jami-Lee Ross, who got 19,289 votes, despite his theoretical advantage of both the Citizens and Ratepayers and National Party electorate ‘machines’.”
Former Auckland Mayoral candidate Penny Bright will be standing on an ‘anti-corruption’ platform’ for genuine transparency and accountability in local and central government and within the New Zealand judiciary.
“National Party MP Pansy Wong, left under a murky, corrupt cloud involving ‘misuse of public office for private gain.’
My commonsense ‘systemic’ solution to the problem of MPs ‘conduct’ is a ‘Code of Conduct’ for MPs – with clear guidelines and sanctions for breaches thereof,” continued Ms Bright.
“As New Zealand is ‘perceived’ to be the ‘least corrupt country in the world’ (along with Singapore and Denmark) according to Transparency International’s ‘Corruption Perception Index’, why do New Zealand MPs responsible for ‘making the rules’ for everybody else – not already have a ‘Code of Conduct’ for themselves?”
“I intend to hold at least three public meetings in the Botany electorate, in February, covering ‘conflicts of interest’, ‘corrupt practices’ and the lack of genuine transparency and accountability in both local and central government and within the judiciary.”
“Having now attended two significant ‘anti-corruption’ International Conferences, (the Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference 2009); and the recent Transparency International 14th International Anti-Corruption Conference 2010), it is my considered opinion that the information provided at these public meetings will be politically ‘explosive'”.
(BACKGROUNDER: NZ ‘Corruption Reality Checklist’, made available to delegates at the Transparency International 14th International Anti-Corruption Conference 2010 at the end of this email. This will form the basis of my anti-corruption campaign.)
Penny Bright
Media Spokesperson
Water Pressure Group
Judicially recognised ‘
Public Watchdog’ on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters.
2010 Auckland Mayoral candidate.
‘Anti-Corruption campaigner’.
Attendee: Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference Brisbane 2009.
Attendee: Transparency International 14th International Anti-Corruption Conference Bangkok 2010.
Candidate for the Botany by-election as an ‘Independent Public Watchdog’.
Ph (09) 846 9825
021 211 4 127
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CORRUPTION REALITY CHECKLIST – NEW ZEALAND
1. Has NZ ratified the UN Convention Against Corruption ? NO
2. Does NZ have an independent anti-corruption body tasked with educating the public and PREVENTING corruption? NO
3. Do NZ’s laws ensure transparency in the funding of candidates for elected public office and political parties at central government level ? NO
4. Do NZ Members of Parliament have a ‘Code of Conduct’? NO
5. Do NZ Local Govt elected reps have a ‘Code of Conduct’? YES
6. Is it an offence for NZ Local Govt elected reps to breach the ‘Code of Conduct’? NO
7. Is there a lawful requirement for a publicly-available ‘Register of Interests’ for NZ Local Govt elected reps? NO
8. Is there a lawful requirement for a publicly-available ‘Register of Interests’ for NZ Central Govt staff responsible for procurement? NO
9. Is there a lawful requirement for a publicly-available ‘Register of Interests’ for NZ Local Govt staff responsible for procurement? NO
10. Is there a lawful requirement for details of ‘contracts issued’ – including the name of the contractor; scope, term and value of the contract to be published in NZ Central Govt Public Sector, and Local Govt (Council) Annual Reports so that they are available for public scrutiny? NO
11. Is it a lawful requirement that a ‘cost-benefit analysis’ of NZ Central Govt public finances be undertaken to substantiate that private procurement of public services previously provided ‘in-house’ is cost-effective for the public majority? NO
12. Is it a lawful requirement that a ‘cost-benefit analysis’ of NZ Local Govt public finances be undertaken to substantiate that private procurement of public services previously provided ‘in-house’ is cost-effective for the public majority? NO
13. Does NZ have a legally-enforcable ‘Code of Conduct’ for members of the NZ Judiciary? NO
14. Are all NZ Court proceedings recorded, and audio records made available to parties who request them? NO
15. Is there a lawful requirement for a publicly-available NZ Judicial ‘Register of Interests’? NO
16. Is there a lawful requirement for a publicly-available NZ ‘Register of Lobbyists’ at Central Govt Ministerial level? NO
17. Is there a legal requirement at NZ Central and Local Govt level for a ‘post-separation employment quarantine ‘ period, from the time officials leave the public service to take up a similar role in the private sector? NO
18. Is it a lawful requirement that it is only a binding vote of the public majority that can determine whether public assets held at NZ Central Govt or Local Govt level are sold; or long-term leased via Public-Private –Partnerships? NO
19. Is it unlawful in NZ for politicians to knowingly misrepresent their policies prior to election at central or local government level? NO
20. Do NZ laws promote and protect individuals, NGOs and community-based organisations who are ‘whistleblowing’ against ‘conflicts of interest’ and corrupt practices at central and local govt level and within the judiciary? NO
Prepared by Penny Bright –for Transparency International 14th Conference 7/11/2010
IACC ID D – 1198 https://waterpressure.wordpress.com
Why ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’ Penny Bright is disclosing that the OAG is ‘undertaking preliminary inquiries’ into the 7 NZ United Water contracts
OPEN LETTER
Bruce Robertson
Assistant Auditor-General
Local Government
Dear Bruce,
In response to your request:
” …I would ask you not to disclose we are undertaking preliminary inquiries.”
“Why we ask for privacy?
At the preliminary stage it is still to be determined whether we will inquire and, if we do, how we will report. As part of the process we may or may not make contact with all parties concerned. If we decide not to, there is no reason to indicate to the parties we are not undertaking an inquiry – especially if we have not made direct contact with them. So it is on a pragmatic basis that we do not publicise preliminary inquires .
We are committed to transparency, but it is premature at this stage of our work to publicise what we are doing in relation to your request. It is on these grounds I would ask you not to disclose we are undertaking preliminary inquiries.
The inquiry work is the preserve of the Auditor-General. ”
I’m sorry Bruce, but I see a significant lack of consistency in the approach of the OAG regarding the disclosure of the ‘undertaking of preliminary inquiries’.
Please be reminded of the following articles which report none other than the Auditor-General herself, Auditor-General Lyn Provost, who:
“…said last week that she was looking into the matter but had yet to decide if an inquiry was needed.”
__________________________
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10694214
However Labour MP Pete Hodgson has been pushing for the Auditor-General to carry out an inquiry into Mrs Wong and her husband’s use of the travel perk.
Auditor-General Lyn Provost said last week that she was looking into the matter but had yet to decide if an inquiry was needed.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10693149
Auditor-General Lyn Provost has confirmed she is considering the latest information around Sammy Wong’s possible misuse of his wife Pansy’s Parliamentary travel perk, before deciding whether to investigate the matter.
________________________________
How is that not publicity about a ‘preliminary’ inquiry?
If the Auditor-General has the lawful power and authority to publicise the fact that the OAG is effectively conducting a preliminary inquiry – then why can’t I?
I am fully aware of my lawful rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 to ‘Freedom of Expression’:
_______________________
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 14. Freedom of expression
––-Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek,receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.
______________________________
– which is based upon:
Article 19 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
___________________________________________________
I acknowledge that it may be the OAG’s ‘inquiry’, but it was MY request for this inquiry, and I believe, in all fairness, that I have an equal ‘pragmatic’ right, to keep the public informed as to where this matter is at.
So Bruce, it is upon these grounds that I will be publicly disclosing that you are undertaking preliminary inquiries.
FYI – I have announced that I will be standing as a candidate in the Botany by-election, following the resignation of Pansy Wong, on an anti-corruption and pro-GENUINE transparency platform.
Yours sincerely,
Penny
Penny Bright
Media Spokesperson
Water Pressure Group
(New Zealand)
Judicially recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ for water and Auckland regional governance matters.
2010 Auckland Mayoral candidate.
“Anti-corruption campaigner”.
Attendee: Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference 2009
Attendee: Transparency International’s 14th IACC 2010
Ph (09) 846 9825
021 211 4 127
___________________________
Penny
Picking up on your request I clarify our approach, I would not the following:
Statutory provision
The basis on which we conduct inquires is generally under s 18 of the Public Audit Act 2001. The main section is s 18(1) – “The Auditor-General may inquire, either on request or on the Auditor-General’s own initiative, into any matter concerning a public entity’s use of it resources”. I would also refer you to our website which expands on the process we are using to consider your request. Part of that information includes the following:
What is an inquiry?
An inquiry may involve looking into financial, accountability, governance or conduct issues in a public entity. An inquiry will usually question whether the public entity:
- applied its resources effectively and efficiently and without waste,
- complied with its legal obligations,
- acted honestly and with integrity in its dealings, and
- managed its finances prudently.
The concerns may have been raised by a member of the public, a member of Parliament, another organisation, or the Auditor-General. However, we are not a complaints agency. No one can make the Auditor-General investigate a matter.
When a matter is referred to her, the Auditor-General decides whether to initiate an inquiry. We may decide not to look into it (for example, because we are not the appropriate authority to do so), we might refer it to our appointed auditor to consider during the next annual audit of the public entity, or we may consider the matter when we plan our performance audits.
If we decide to undertake an inquiry, we will also determine its scope. We might decide to look into only some of the concerns raised by the correspondent, or consider additional issues.
We then gather evidence and information, which we analyse to determine whether the entity has acted correctly and appropriately in the context of its legislative framework, applicable policies, and best practice.
We conduct our inquiries in private. However, we give all directly affected parties an opportunity to be heard, including the opportunity to comment on the factual accuracy and balance of our findings. We consider all such comments. However, because the Auditor-General is independent, we do not need the agreement or approval of the affected parties, or anyone else, before we confirm our findings.
The conclusions that we reach are our own.
Please note the last 2 paragraphs. An inquiry is that of the Auditor-General’s, not the correspondent.
On the basis there are grounds for us to inquire (which essentially is what the preliminary inquiry is about) we are looking to review the public entitles use/protection of its resources. We are not investigating a private sector organisation – in the case of your inquiry, United Water itself. Our website page on inquiries also notes (for your advice I also repeat the information in relation to policy decisions and the judicial function):
Private entities
The Auditor-General can only inquire into the actions of public entities (see section 5 of the Public Audit Act 2001). We cannot inquire into private organisations, including organisations which may have received funding from a public entity. However, we can look at the activities of a public entity in contracting with or directly funding a private entity, and the manner in which the public entity has monitored the private entity’s use of public funds.
Policy decisions
The Auditor-General does not have any authority to question matters of government or local authority policy. Making policy decisions is a job for elected representatives. For example, we would not inquire into a decision by the Government or a local authority to acquire or dispose of a particular asset. We could, however, consider the extent to which the public entity had implemented that decision in accordance with the applicable policy.
Judicial function
The Auditor-General does not have a judicial function, so we cannot make findings on whether an entity has acted lawfully or whether an individual is culpable for a particular action. The most we can do is express an opinion. We cannot overturn an entity’s decisions or actions. That is for the courts through the judicial review process. We also cannot provide any redress or remedies in respect of particular concerns, or direct a public entity to act on our findings or recommendations.
Why we ask for privacy?
At the preliminary stage it is still to be determined whether we will inquire and, if we do, how we will report. As part of the process we may or may not make contact with all parties concerned. If we decide not to, there is no reason to indicate to the parties we are not undertaking an inquiry – especially if we have not made direct contact with them. So it is on a pragmatic basis that we do not publicise preliminary inquires .
We are committed to transparency, but it is premature at this stage of our work to publicise what we are doing in relation to your request. It is on these grounds I would ask you not to disclose we are undertaking preliminary inquiries. The inquiry work is the preserve of the Auditor-General.
I have indicated to you previously that we will let you know the outcome of our preliminary work. I have also indicated that this will not be until into the New Year.
Regards
Bruce Robertson
Bruce Robertson
Assistant Auditor-General, Local Government
Office of the Auditor-General, Te Mana Arotake
100 Molesworth Street, Thorndon, Wellington 6011
PO Box 3928, Wellington 6140
DDI: +64 4 917 1601; Mobile +64 021 2228 451
This email, and any attachments to it, contain confidential information and may be legally privileged. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete it. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, disclose, copy, or interfere with this material. We use standard virus-checking software but accept no responsibility for viruses or anything similar in this email or any attachment.
___________________________________________________
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
18 November 2010
URGENT!
‘OPEN LETTER’ REQUEST FOR URGENT INTERVENTION/INVESTIGATION BY AUDITOR-GENERAL INTO PRICING OF 7 UNITED WATER NZ CONTRACTS
NZ Auditor-General
Lynne Provost
Dear Auditor-General,
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1011/S00373/house-rises-while-debating-local-government-bill.htm
House Rises While Debating Local Government Bill
Thursday, 18 November 2010, 12:09 am
Article: ParliamentToday.co.nz
House Rises While Debating Local Government Bill
The Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill passed its second reading by 64 votes to 56 and MPs had just started the committee stage debate when the House rose at midnight.
It will resume tomorrow at 9am.
***
ParliamentToday.co.nz is a breaking news source for New Zealand parliamentary business featuring broadcast daily news reports on Parliamentary Business.”
______________________________
If Prime Minister John Key does not act today to ensure that ‘due diligence’ is applied and that legislative changes to the Local Government Act 2002 which would make it easier to privatise water services via changes to ‘contracting out’, and ‘Public Private Partnership’ (PPP) provisions, are ‘stayed’ until a full and thorough independent investigation of the pricing practices of private water company United Water’s seven contracts in New Zealand has been undertaken, I am formally requesting your urgent intervention to ensure that his happens.
Yours sincerely,
Yours sincerely,
Penny Bright
Media Spokesperson
Water Pressure Group
Judicially-recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters.
“Anti-corruption campaigner”
Ph (09) 846 9825
021 211 4 127
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com
‘Open Letter to New Zealand Prime Minister John Key,
Dear Prime Minister,
I have just come back from the Transparency International 14th ‘International Anti-Corruption Conference in Bangkok Thailand, attended by over 1200 anti-corruption delegates from all over the world.
In my considered opinion it is a form of ‘wilful blindness’ bordering on a form of ‘corrupt practice’ to force through legislation pushing a privatisation model which may be based on a ‘rort and a fraud’ without investigating legitimate concerns which have been put before Parliament in a proper way.
Petition of Penelope Mary Bright and 171 others
Requesting that the House of Representatives do not implement any legislative changes to the Local Government Act 2002 which would make it easier to privatise water services via changes to ‘contracting out’, and ‘Public Private Partnership’ (PPP) provisions, until a full and thorough independent investigation of the pricing practices of private water company United Water’s seven contracts in New Zealand has been undertaken.
| Petition number: | 2008/60 |
|---|---|
| Presented by: | Su’a William Sio |
| Date presented: | 9 December 2009 |
| Referred to: | Local Government and Environment Committee |
(Evidence supporting this petition at the end of this email)
NATIONAL/ACT GOVT ARE RAILROADING THROUGH WATER PRIVATISATION LEGISLATION!!
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1011/S00373/house-rises-while-debating-local-government-bill.htm
House Rises While Debating Local Government Bill
Thursday, 18 November 2010, 12:09 am
Article: ParliamentToday.co.nz
House Rises While Debating Local Government Bill
The Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill passed its second reading by 64 votes to 56 and MPs had just started the committee stage debate when the House rose at midnight.
It will resume tomorrow at 9am.
***
ParliamentToday.co.nz is a breaking news source for New Zealand parliamentary business featuring broadcast daily news reports on Parliamentary Business.
______________________________
A PROTEST IS BEING HELD OUTSIDE PAPAKURA UNITED WATER!
116 Great South Rd
Papakura
THURSDAY 18 NOVEMBER
9AM – 12NOON
THE INTENTION OF THIS LEGISLATION IS TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR WATER MULTINATIONALS (LIKE UNITED WATER- 100% OWNED BY VEOLIA – THE BIGGEST PRIVATE WATER COMPANY IN THE WORLD) TO OPERATE AND MANAGE OUR WATER SERVICES FOR PRIVATE PROFIT.
United Water – have lost the South Australian contract!
So – why are we making it easier for United Water in NZ here in NZ – if their 7 contracts may be based on dodgy and misrepresented pricing?
This is URGENT because the Bill to extend private water contracts to 35 years is back before Parliament , has had its 2nd reading – while my petition calling for an urgent investigation into the 7 NZ United Water contracts is just sitting there as an ‘Item of Business’ before the Local Government and Environment Select Committee.
Where is the ‘due diligence’, ‘prudent stewardship’and ‘fiscal responsibility’ in ignoring EVIDENCE supporting the call for an urgent inquiry into the 7 United Water NZ contracts?
Is this not a form of ‘wilful blindness’ bordering on a form of ‘corrupt practice’ to force through legislation pushing a model which may be based on a ‘rort and a fraud’ without investigating these legitimate concerns which have been put before Parliament in a proper way?
This petition has been tabled as an ‘Item of Business’ for nearly a year!
Did United Water knowingly misrepresent their pricing here in NZ by loading corporate overhead costs from NZ contracts on to South Australian United Water customers?
Think it is politically significant – that while here it’s being made easier for United Water to get (longer) contracts in NZ – the South Australians are effectively ‘ booting’ them out.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/24/2935983.htm
(This is a ‘BOOT’ scheme I DO agree with. )
I contacted South Australia United Water Communications Officer Edwina Chapman (0061 8 8301 2700) and she advised me that the findings of the ‘Independent Expert’ who is investigating the United Water South Australia contract are “not determined”.
(I rang her on Friday 5 November 2010)
But in the meantime – the United Water South Australia contract is NOT being renewed.
PLEASE EXPLAIN TO THE NEW ZEALAND PEOPLE, PRIME MINISTER, WHY, ‘ON YOUR WATCH’ ‘DUE DILIGENCE’ IS NOT BEING EXERCISED AND WHY THERE HAS BEEN NO INVESTIGATION YET INTO THE SEVEN NZ UNITED WATER CONTRACTS.
IF PARLIAMENT IS NOT GOING TO EXERCISE ‘DUE DILIGENCE’ – THEN PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THE AUDITOR-GENERAL (OAG) WILL BE ASKED TO INVESTIGATE THE 7 UNITED WATER NZ CONTRACTS.
THE MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAS ALREADY ADVISED THAT THE OAG IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE BODY TO CARRY OUT THIS INVESTIGATION:
3) REPLY FROM THE MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT RODNEY HIDE DATED
3 NOVEMBER 2010:
_________________________________________________________________
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT IF ‘DUE DILIGENCE’ IS NOT CARRIED OUT BY EITHER THE NZ PARLIAMENT OR THE OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR-GENERAL, I AM GOING TO FORMALLY REQUEST THAT TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL CONDUCT AN URGENT REVIEW OF NEW ZEALAND’S ‘CORRUPTION PERCEPTION INDEX’ STATUS.
(Currently ‘first-equal’ with Singapore and Denmark).
Yours sincerely,
Penny Bright
Media Spokesperson
Water Pressure Group
Judicially-recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters.
“Anti-corruption campaigner”
Ph (09) 846 9825
021 211 4 127
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ENVIRONMENT SELECT COMMITTEE – EVIDENCE SUPPORTING :
Petition 2008/60 of Penelope Mary Bright and 171 others, presented by Su’a William Sio, on 9 December 2009 – referred to the Local Government and Environment Select Committee.
“Requesting that the House of Representatives do not implement any legislative changes to the Local Government Act 2002 which would make it easier to privatise water services via changes to ‘contracting out’, and ‘Public Private Partnership’ (PPP) provisions, until a full and thorough independent investigation of the pricing practices of private water company United Water’s seven contracts in New Zealand has been undertaken.”
1)COPY OF THE ‘STATEMENT OF CLAIM’ ,( sawater sclaim.pdf ) FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF, SA WATER CORPORATION, BY THE CROWN SOLICITOR FOR THE STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :
SA WATER CORPORATION v UNITED WATER INTERNATIONAL PTY ACN 069471334 in the Supreme Court of South Australia.
In brief, UNITED WATER INTERNATIONAL PTY, is being sued by SA WATER CORPORATION, for alleged ‘breach of contract’, and ‘misleading and deceptive conduct’, for failing to disclose, when calculating its profit on ‘Lump Sum Charges’, all its corporate overhead costs for United Water’s other operations (including in New Zealand and Ballarat).
2) LETTER TO THE MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT RODNEY HIDE (DATED 29 SEPTEMBER 2009), REQUESTING HE ADVISE WHICH IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE BODY/AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE EACH OF THE SEVEN UNITED WATER NEW ZEALAND CONTRACTS IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THEY WERE NOT BASED ON FRAUDULENT AND MISREPRESENTED PRICING:
“29 September 2009
OPEN LETTER TO THE MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT RODNEY HIDE –
RE: INVESTIGATION OF NZ UNITED WATER CONTRACTS
Dear Minister,
Attached to this email is a copy of the ‘Statement of Claim’, filed on behalf of the Plaintiff, SA Water Corporation, by the Crown Solicitor for the State of South Australia, in the matter between:
SA WATER CORPORATION v UNITED WATER INTERNATIONAL PTY ACN 069471334 in the Supreme Court of South Australia.
In brief, UNITED WATER INTERNATIONAL PTY, is being sued by SA WATER CORPORATION, for alleged ‘breach of contract’, and ‘misleading and deceptive conduct’, for failing to disclose, when calculating its profit on ‘Lump Sum Charges’, all its corporate overhead costs for United Water’s other operations (including in New Zealand and Ballarat).
This is allegedly in breach of clauses 8 and 14 of the Contract and clause 2(c) of Schedule E to the Contract (which only entitle United Water to charge for costs incurred by it in rendering the Services to SA Water.
These are significant and serious charges.
“The remedies sought are:
1) A order setting aside the 2003 Contract under Section 87 of the Trade Practices Act, 1974 (Cth) and Section 85 of the Fair Trading Act (SA) and for misrepresentation.
2) Damages for breach of Contract.
3.Damages pursuant to Section 82 of the Trade Practices Act, 1974 (Cth).
4) Damages pursuant to Section 84 of the Fair Trading Act, 1987 (SA).
5) Damages pursuant to Section 7 of the Misrepresentation Act, 1972 (SA).
6) Further or in the alternative, orders as the Court think appropriate pursuant to Section 87 of Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and Section 85 of the Fair Trading Act, 1987 (SA) to compensate SA Water for the loss and damage sufered by reason of the conduct of United Water in contravention of Section 52 of Trade Practices Act, 1974 (Cth) and Section 56 of the Fair Trading Act, 1987 (SA).
7. Interest.
8. Costs.
9. Further or other relief as the Court thinks fit.”
A) Please advise as Minister of Local Government, which is the most appropriate body/authority to investigate:
1) Each of the following United Water contracts in order to establish that they were not based on fraudulent and misrepresented pricing, which, as I understand it, would, if proven, be grounds for the ‘setting aside’ of the following United Water New Zealand contracts.
a) Papakura Concession
b) Ruapehu Operations and Maintenance
c) Thames Coromandel Operations and Maintenance
d) Wellington Wastewater Treatment Plants
e) Waitomo Operations and Maintenance
f) Franklin Operations and Maintenance
g) Queenstown Operations and Maintenance
2) The role played, (if any) by employees of Watercare Services Ltd, in the securing of these United Water New Zealand contracts, particularly that of the ex-Mayor of Papakura District Council, Mr David Hawkins, now ‘Corporate Liaison Manager’ for Watercare Services, (currently seconded to work for the Auckland Transition Agency),who played a significant role in the establishing of the United Water (Papakura) contract in 1997.
Yours sincerely,
Penny Bright
Media Spokesperson
Water Pressure Group
Judicially recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ for Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters.
Ph (09) 846 9825
021 211 4 127
(waterpressure@gmail.com)
______________________________
3) REPLY FROM THE MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT RODNEY HIDE DATED
3 NOVEMBER 2010:
4) OPEN LETTER/OIA REQUEST TO ALL THE FOLLOWING TWENTY NATIONAL PARTY CABINET MINISTERS WHO SUPPORT WATER PRIVATISATION, AS PER THE FOLLOWING CABINET DECISIONS OF 27 OCTOBER 2009:
- extend the 15-year limit on water services contracts and joint arrangements with the private sector to 35 years, which makes these arrangements more workable
- allow water services arrangements to include BOOT schemes by allowing ownership of infrastructure by the private sector during the contract period
- repeal the provisions that require councils entering into a contract or joint arrangement with the private sector to retain control over the management of water services (control over pricing and policy to be retained by councils).”
| Penny Bright <waterpressure@gmail.com> | Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 3:21 PM |
|
Cc: j.carter@ministers.govt.nz, chris.auchinvole@parliament.govt.nz, cam.calder@national.org.nz, david.garrett@parliament.govt.nz, george.hawkins@parliament.govt.nz, shane.jones@parliament.govt.nz, rahui.katene@parliament.govt.nz, nikki.kaye@parliament.govt.nz, sue.kedgley@parliament.govt.nz, phil.twyford@parliament.govt.nz, louise.upston@parliament.govt.nz, Nicky Hager <nicky@paradise.net.nz>, jackie.blue@parliament.govt.nz, john.boscawen@parliament.govt.nz, Sue Bradford <sue.bradford@parliament.govt.nz>, simon.bridges@parliament.govt.nz, Hone Harawira <hone.harawira@parliament.govt.nz>, Tau Henare <tau.henare@parliament.govt.nz>, sua.william.sio@parliament.govt.nz, Russel Norman <russel.norman@parliament.govt.nz>, jeanette.fitzsimons@parliament.govt.nz, metiria.turei@parliament.govt.nz, j.collins@ministers.govt.nz, s.power@ministers.govt.nz, c.finlayson@ministers.govt.nz, w.mapp@ministers.govt.nz, j.key@ministers.govt.nz, b.english@ministers.govt.nz, Carol Beaumont <carol.beaumont@parliament.govt.nz>, jim.anderton@parliament.govt.nz, bill.burrill@arc.govt.nz, ccarter@calaw.co.nz, christine.rose@arc.govt.nz, christine@rankingroup.co.nz, dianne.glenn@arc.govt.nz, jancolin@ihug.co.nz, joel.cayford@arc.govt.nz, judith.bassett@xtra.co.nz, otunnz@nznet.gen.nz, s_coney@xtra.co.nz, Mike Lee <mike.lee@arc.govt.nz>, cr.baguley@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.bhatnagar@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.christian@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.donnelly@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.easte@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.goldsmith@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.hay@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.lotu-iiga@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.millar@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.moyle@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.raffills@aucklandcity.govt.nz, mayor@aucklandcity.govt.nz, “Cr Armstrong, Douglas” <cr.armstrong@aucklandcity.govt.nz>, “Cr Boyle, Leila” <cr.boyle@aucklandcity.govt.nz>, “Cr Casey, Cathy” <cr.casey@aucklandcity.govt.nz>, “Cr Fryer, Glenda” <cr.fryer@aucklandcity.govt.nz>, “Cr Mulholland, Graeme” <cr.mulholland@aucklandcity.govt.nz>, “Cr Northey, Richard” <cr.northey@aucklandcity.govt.nz>, “Cr Roche, Denise” <cr.roche@aucklandcity.govt.nz>, arthur.anae@xtra.co.nz, blkalf@xtra.co.nz, botany@michaelwilliams.co.nz, brown@manukau.govt.nz, d.collings@xtra.co.nz, d.newman@orcon.net.nz, dick.quax@xtra.co.nz, gtroup@xtra.co.nz, hugh_henrygraham@yahoo.com, info@stirrups.co.nz, jross@jami-leeross.com, maggiewb@clear.net.nz, mayor@manukau.govt.nz, sharonstewart@xtra.co.nz, sw.sio@xtra.co.nz, thebrowns@colbar.co.nz, Bob Wichman <bobwichman@woosh.co.nz>, Sylvia Taylor <sylviataylor@xtra.co.nz>, andrew.williams@northshorecity.govt.nz, ann.hartley@northshorecity.govt.nz, callum.blair@northshorecity.govt.nz, chris.darby@northshorecity.govt.nz, dianne.hale@northshorecity.govt.nz, grantgillon@ihug.co.nz, heather.brown@northshorecity.govt.nz, jan.o’connor@northshorecity.govt.nz, joy.brett@northshorecity.govt.nz, ken.mckay@northshorecity.govt.nz, kevin.schwass@northshorecity.govt.nz, lisa.whyte@northshorecity.govt.nz, margaret.miles@northshorecity.govt.nz, parfitt.associates@xtra.co.nz, Tony Holman <tony.holman@northshorecity.govt.nz>, Vivienne Keohane <vivienne.keohane@northshorecity.govt.nz>, brentc@win.co.nz, cconroy@xtra.co.nz, cpenrose@papakura.govt.nz, katrinapiggott@yahoo.com, kiwisuperscope@xtra.co.nz, owenpringle@xtra.co.nz, p.j.jones@xtra.co.nz, pcgt.goldsmith@xtra.co.nz, sattl@xtra.co.nz, dh.parker@xtra.co.nz, gaye.harding@rodney.govt.nz, grevwalker@clear.net.nz, john.kirikiri@rodney.govt.nz, june.turner@rodney.govt.nz, michael.goudie@gmail.com, pdel@xtra.co.nz, penny.webster@rodney.govt.nz, powellg@xtra.co.nz, ross.craig@rodney.govt.nz, suzanne.weld@rodney.govt.nz, zane.taylor@rodney.govt.nz, Wayne Walker <wayne@waynewalker.co.nz>, bruce.robertson@oag.govt.nz, phillippa.smith@oag.govt.nz, tinz@paradise.net.nz, Transparency International <ti@transparency.org>, Rosslyn Noonan <rosslynn@hrc.co.nz>, Sylvia Bell <sylviab@hrc.co.nz>, michaelW@hrc.co.nz, emma.miles@police.govt.nz, “andrew.coster” <Andrew.Coster@police.govt.nz>, “mike.webb” <Mike.Webb@police.govt.nz>, “Bernard.Orsman@nzherald.co.nz” <bernard.orsman@nzherald.co.nz>, bernard.hickey@interest.co.nz, Fran O’Sullivan <fran.osullivan@xtra.co.nz>, audrey.young@nzherald.co.nz, john.armstrong@nzherald.co.nz, phil kitchin <phil.kitchin@dompost.co.nz>, philt@times.co.nz, imogen.neale@snl.co.nz, Ian Wishart <ian@investigatemagazine.com>, editor <editor@uncensored.co.nz>, willie@newstalkzb.co.nz, jtamihere@radiolive.co.nz, keith@truewines.co.nz, keith.locke@parliament.govt.nz, janderson@nbr.co.nz, “Anthony Hubbard (SUN)” <anthony.hubbard@star-times.co.nz>
|
|
“………………………………
Your Request Numbered 4
4) Please provide all/any information which confirms that you, as a Cabinet Minister:
(a) Were made aware of the fact that private water company United Water International Pty, which currently has seven contracts with Councils in New Zealand, is being sued by the Crown Solicitor for the State of South Australia…
in the Supreme Court of South Australia.
The only information identified as coming within the scope of this part of your request is the email you sent to the Prime Minister’s email address, the content of which you copied into your request.
(b) and that you as a Cabinet Minister, applied due diligence and gave due consideration to this fact before arriving at the above-mentioned Cabinet decision to facilitate privatisation of water services in New Zealand.
I can assure you that the Prime Minister is extremely diligent and gives due consideration to every matter considered by Cabinet. ”
___________________________
Your Requests Numbered 1-3
1) All/any information upon which you are relying which confirms how these proposed legislative changes to facilitate water privatisation serve the ‘public interest’ of the majority of citizens and ratepayers as opposed to the ‘private interests’ of those who own/operate and/ or manage the water services ‘contracting companies’ – (including water multinationals such as Veolia who own United Water).
2) All.any information upon which you are relying which provides the conclusive EVIDENCE that such legislative changes to facilitate water privatisation, as proposed, including the PPP/BOOT model are in fact more ‘effective’ and ‘efficient’ delivery methods for water services.
3) All/any information upon which you are relying which confirms that these proposed legislative changes to facilitate water privatisation are being ‘triggered’ by ratepayers and residents, as opposed to privately-owned water services providers, and those whose role it is to facilitate ‘Public Private partnerships for water services. ie WHO WANTS and is pushing for the privatisation of New Zealand water services?
Information relating to water infrastructure regulation in the Local Government Act was provided to Cabinet by the Minister of Local Gvoernment. These first three questions appear to be more closely connected to the responsibilities of the Minister of Local Government. Accordingly, I am transferring yout request to the Minister’s Office under section 14 of the Official Information Act.
6) REPLY FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT MINISTER RODNEY HIDE
DATED 10 DECEMBER 2009
WPG WATER PRIVATISATION CABINET OIAs Rodney Hide 10 Dec 2009.pdf 83K
10 December 2009
Official Information Act request
I refer to your requests of 6 November 2009 to the Prime Minister, Hon Simon Power, Hon Dr Nick Smith and hon David Carter for information relating to proposed changes to aspects of the local Government Act 2002 and water infrastructure. Questions one, two and three of these requests have been transferred to me, udner section 14 of the Official Information and Meetings Act 1982 (the Act), as these questions relate more closely to my responsibilities as Minister of Local Government.
I understand that other Ministers to whom you addressed your request have written to you directly advising you that as the Prime Minister has already transferred questions one to three to me, there does not appear to be any advantage to you in making additional transfers.
You have asked for the following information:
- All/any information upon which you are relying which confirms how these proposed legislative changes to facilitate water privatisation serve the ‘public interest’ of the majority of citizens and ratepayers as opposed to the ‘private interests’ of those who own/operate and/ or manage the water services ‘contracting companies’ – (including water multinationals such as Veolia who own United Water).
- All.any information upon which you are relying which provides the conclusive EVIDENCE that such legislative changes to facilitate water privatisation, as proposed, including the PPP/BOOT model are in fact more ‘effective’ and ‘efficient’ delivery methods for water services.
- All/any information upon which you are relying which confirms that these proposed legislative changes to facilitate water privatisation are being ‘triggered’ by ratepayers and residents, as opposed to privately-owned water services providers, and those whose role it is to facilitate ‘Public Private partnerships for water services. ie WHO WANTS and is pushing for the privatisation of New Zealand water services?
I advise you that the proposed legislative changes do not facilitate water privatisation. Therefore, no information relating to these parts of your request has been identified.
I am, accordingly declining these parts of your request under section 18(e) of the Act because the information requested does not exist.
…………….”
7) DEFINITION OF WATER PRIVATISATION WHICH CONFIRM THAT IT COVERS BOTH THE OPERATION/MANAGEMENT OF WATER SERVICES ASSETS AS WELL AS ‘OWNERSHIP.”
http://www.ppiaf.org/documents/e-book_PSP_Impact_Electricity_Water_Distribution.pdf
Does Private Sector Participation Improve Performance in Electricity
and Water Distribution?
Katharina Gassner
Pg 3
“Differentiation by Contract Type
Much past research has concentrated on “pure privatization”—permanent
private control over business assets and associated rights.
But because of natural monopoly features and social and political considerations, full divestiture of assets is rare in electricity and especially so in water and sanitation.
The study therefore examines the broad range of legal arrangements for involving the private sector—management and lease contracts, concessions, and partial as well as full divestitures—using the transfer of operating rights to determine whether a utility is privately operated.
The results are differentiated by type of contract. The strength of the PSP
impact is expected to vary by contract type, and the predominant type differs
by sector: divestitures (full and partial) account for most PSP cases in electricity
distribution, and concessions account for most in water and sanitation.”
WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING FROM THE LONG-TERM LEASE OF THE PIPES
THE PUBLIC HAVE ALREADY PAID FOR?
Back to the public or the private ‘operators’?
Follow the income stream………………
Who ‘owns’ the ‘own’ part of the BOOT scheme?
(BOOT – “Build Own Operate Transfer”)
8) OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT REQUESTS TO SEVEN NEW ZEALAND COUNCILS WHO HAVE UNITED WATER CONTRACTS:
a) Papakura Concession
b) Ruapehu Operations and Maintenance
c) Thames Coromandel Operations and Maintenance
d) Wellington Wastewater Treatment Plantse) Waitomo Operations and Maintenance
f) Franklin Operations and Maintenance
g) Queenstown Operations and Maintenance
On 27 April 2010, I sent essentially the same OIA request to each of the above-mentioned Councils with United Water contracts.
Following is the letter sent to Ruapehu District Council:
“27 April 2010
Ruapehu District Council
CEO
David Hammond
URGENT’ OPEN LETTER/ OIA REQUEST TO THE CEO OF THE WAITOMO DISTRICT COUNCIL
RE: UNITED WATER CONTRACT:
Dear David,
Under the ‘urgency’ provisions of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 , I require this information by Tuesday 4 May 2010 5pm.
This is because I have been asked to give evidence by the Local Government and Environment Select Committee by 7 May 2010 in support of the following petition:
CEO
David Hammond
RE: UNITED WATER CONTRACT:
Petition 2008/60 of Penelope Mary Bright and 171 others, presented by Su’a William Sio, on 9 December 2009 – referred to the Local Government and Environment Select Committee.
“Requesting that the House of Representatives do not implement any legislative changes to the Local Government Act 2002 which would make it easier to privatise water services via changes to ‘contracting out’, and ‘Public Private Partnership’ (PPP) provisions, until a full and thorough independent investigation of the pricing practices of private water company United Water’s seven contracts in New Zealand has been undertaken.”
______________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Our services
Veolia Water operates more than 4,400 contracts in 64 countries, providing water and wastewater services to more than 139 million people.
Founded more than 150 years ago in France and originally known as Compagnie Générale des Eaux, Veolia Water is the worldwide leader in water services, employing more than 93,000 people.
Veolia Water’s expertise covers each stage of water cycle management including:
- Managing the operations and maintenance of water and wastewater services as outsourced by public authorities and industry
-
Designing, building and supplying water equipment, systems and treatment facilities
Veolia Water also supports sustainable development to conserve water resources and provides the capabilities to establish alternative water sources.
Veolia Water is the water division of the world leader in environmental services, Veolia Environnement – which offers solutions in waste management, energy and transport.
______________________________________________________________
PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
1) Copies of the ‘public advertisments’ (if any) for the ‘Request For Tender’, prior to the awarding of this contract to United Water, which confirm that the ‘tender process’ was open.
2) Copies of the ‘request for tender’ from the Ruapehu District Council to potential contractors/suppliers, which confirm that the ‘tender process’ was open to other contractors than just United Water.
3) Copies of the ‘Terms of tender’.
4) Information which confirms the names and positions of those who drew up the tender document (s).
5) Information which confirms the names and positions of those who evaluated the tenders.
6) Documentation which explained the roles and responsibilities of each tender evaluation committee member at that time.
7) Documentation which explained the roles and responsibilities of the tender evaluation committee convenor at that time.
8) Information which confirms the documenting of a ‘Register of Interests’ (or the like), for those involved in drawing up the tender document(s), and those involved in evaluating and awarding the tender(s), in order to establish that there were no ‘conflicts of interest’.
9) A copy of the ‘Evaluation Matrix’, (or equivalent document), including an explanation of how the ‘tenders’ were scored.
10) A copy of the information which outlines the processes involved in signing the Evaluation Matrix’, (or equivalent document).
11) A copy of the signed Evaluation Matrix’, (or equivalent document.
12) A copy of the information which outlines the processes involved in preparing report recommending the preferred tender.
13) A copy of the report recommending the preferred tender.
14) A copy of the ‘Agreement and contract’.
15) A copy of the ‘Terms of contract’.
16) Copies of any subsequent contract variations
17) Copies of full financial statements i.e. Profit & Loss and Balance Sheet from United Water, on an annual basis, since the awarding of this contract.
18) All information (if any) pertaining to all/any ‘lobbying’ by any person or any agent acting for United Water/Veolia in order to assist their bid for this contract, including but not limited to: meeting minutes/reports/ letters/emails/recorded telephone conversations.
19) All information (if any) pertaining to all/any ‘lobbying’, by any person or any agent of Watercare Services Ltd, in particular, but not limited to Mark Ford, David Hawkins, or Graham Wood, in order to assist United Water /Veolia in their bid for this contract.
20) Copies of any/all audit documents regarding the tendering process and awarding of this contract to United Water by:
a) Council’s internal auditing body.
b) The Office of the Auditor General.
Yours sincerely,
Penny Bright
Media Spokesperson
Water Pressure Group
Judicially recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters.
“Anti-corruption campaigner”
Ph (09) 846 9825
021 211 4 127 https://waterpressure.wordpress.com
___________________________________________________________________
9) RESPONSES FROM NEW COUNCILS WITH UNITED WATER CONTRACTS:
(I can provide this evidence for the Select Committee.)
a) Papakura Concession
Have provided electronic copies of the original contract and variations.
b) Ruapehu Operations and Maintenance
Have provided over 600 hard copy pages of documentation, including evidence that United Water put in the cheapest tender and won the contract in 2002.
(Did United Water misrepresent their pricing in order to win this contract?)
c) Thames Coromandel Operations and Maintenance
Have yet to provide any information – they want to charge for information.
d) Wellington Wastewater Treatment Plants
Have provided electronic copies of information.
e) Waitomo Operations and Maintenance
Have yet to provide any information – want to charge for information.
f) Franklin Operations and Maintenance
Have yet to provide any information.
g) Queenstown Operations and Maintenance
Have provided electronic copies of some information relating to tendering for contract.
10) UPDATE FROM AUSTRALIA REGARDING DEVELOPMENTS WITH UNITED WATER SOUTH AUSTRALIA COURT CASE.
I contacted a South Australian Reporter from ‘The Australian’ who emailed me the following copy of this article which he wrote:
“Hi Penny, as discussed, latest article in the local paper here. My details are below. Please email me details of your case. Cheers
| The Advertiser, Edition 1 – State | THU 08 APR 2010, Page 020 |
<h
…
[Message clipped] View entire message
Anti-Corruption campaigner Penny Bright to stand in the Botany by-election 2011.
Anti-Corruption campaigner Penny Bright to stand in the Botany by-election 2011.
15 December 201
“If this National/ACT Government thought that the departure of Pansy Wong would switch the light off the corruption issue – they could not have been more mistaken,” says Water Pressure Spokesperson and ‘anti-corruption campaigner, Penny Bright.
“I will be standing as an independent candidate in the Botany by-election on an anti-corruption / pro(GENUINE) transparency platform, in order to focus as big a public spotlight as possible on these issues.”
“An outline of that platform – is attached.
It is the NZ ‘Corruption Reality Checklist’ that I prepared and distributed at the recent Transparency International 14th International Anti-Corruption Conference (IACC) in Bangkok 10 -13 November 2010.”
“It is high time that New Zealand got our domestic ‘House’ in order, and established the legislative framework to prevent and fight corruption, whilst promoting and ensuring transparency and accountability in local and central government and within the judiciary.”
“It is my prediction that the up-coming Botany by-election will assist this process, which, in my considered opinion, is LONG overdue.”
“It is also my prediction that these anti-corruption issues raised in the Botany by-election will have an impact on the 2011 General Election.”
“I will also be addressing issues concerning transparency, ‘conflicts of interest’ and ‘democratic accountability’, with the Auckland Council, at the Auckland Town Hall, Thursday 16 December 2010 at 10am.
http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/AboutCouncil/meetings_agendas/governing_body/Pages/home.aspx
“Open Agenda
Governing Body
16 December 2010
8 Deputations
8.1 Deputation – Ms Penny Bright
Executive Summary
Ms Penny Bright wishes to speak about the serious lack of transparency regarding information (not) being made available to citizens and ratepayers of the Auckland region, developments with the ‘railroading’ of the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Act 2010 and implications regarding the application of ‘due diligence’ to the current seven New Zealand United Water contracts and the continuing persecution of Water Pressure Group members over disputed water services accounts.”
Penny Bright
Media Spokesperson
Water Pressure Group
Judicially recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance.
‘Anti-corruption campaigner’.
Attendee: Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference 2009
Attendee: Transparency International 14th International Anti-Corruption Conference 2010
Auckland Mayoral candidate 2010
Candidate Botany by-election 2011
Ph (09) 846 9825
021 211 4 127
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
ORIGINATING REQUEST FOR ‘SPEAKING RIGHTS’
6 December 2010
Len Brown
Dear Len,
I am requesting ‘speaking rights’ at the next meeting of Auckland Council to be held on Thursday 16 December 2010, under provision SO 3.20.1 of Auckland Council Standing Orders, as advised by Auckland Council Democracy Services Advisor, Mike Giddey:
“In essence SO 3.20.1 says deputations may be received provided an application has been lodged with the Chief Executive at least 7 working days before the date of the meeting concerned and has been subsequently approved by the Chairperson (Mayor).
As you said on the phone your best bet would be to lodge your application with me and I will forward it to the Chief Executive and the Mayor for approval.”
SUBJECT MATTER:
1) Having just returned from Transparency International’s
14th International Anti-Corruption Conference
(10 – 13 November 2010), I wish to raise with the Auckland Council, the serious lack of ‘transparency’ regarding information (not) being made available to citizens and ratepayers of the Auckland region.
[Please be reminded that New Zealand is ‘perceived’ to be the least corrupt country in the world (along with Denmark and Singapore). Arguably – New Zealand should therefore be the ‘most transparent’?]
a) The failure of former Executive Chair of the Auckland Transition Agency – Mark Ford, to provide information requested under the OIA, on 25 June 2010, on any of the following matters relating to his appointment of known ‘water privatisers’ involved with United Water to key ‘Executive staff’ positions at Watercare, and related matters:
__________________________________________________
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.
( http://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.
http://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:
“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
______________________________
b) The declining of my OIA request dated 11 October 2010, to the former Executive Chair of the Auckland Transition Agency – Mark Ford – which requested information on rates expenditure in the Auckland region:
“11 October 2010
OPEN LETTER/OIA REQUEST TO THE EXECUTIVE CHAIR OF THE AUCKLAND TRANSITION AGENCY- MARK FORD:
Where EXACTLY are public rates monies being spent NOW across the Auckland region?
PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
1) On a Council by Council basis:
Franklin, Papakura, and Rodney District Councils;
Auckland, Manukau, Waitakere and North Shore City Councils;
Auckland Regional Council
Which services are:
a) Currently provided ‘in-house’;
b) Provided by a Council Controlled Organisation(CCO);
c) Contracted out;
d) Not Applicable (not provided by that Council)?
2) On a Council by Council basis:
Franklin, Papakura, and Rodney District Councils;
Auckland, Manukau, Waitakere and North Shore City Councils;
Auckland Regional Council
For each one of the 112 ‘Council service’s, on a ‘one-by-one’ basis, please provide the following information on those services which have been ‘contracted out’:
a) The name of the contractor.
b) The length of the contract.
c) The value of the contract.
d) The general ‘scope’ of the contract.
The provision of this information will provide, for the FIRST TIME, to citizens and ratepayers of the Auckland region, a very accurate and current picture of WHERE EXACTLY OUR public rates monies are being spent. ….”
_____________________________________________________
THIS OIA REQUEST WAS DECLINED:
“We hereby decline your request as information requested cannot be made available without substantial collation or research.”
Bruce Thomas
Public Information Manager
Auckland Transition Agency
(Please be reminded of the following statutory duty which arises from the Public Records Act 2005
17 Requirement to create and maintain records
(1) Every public office and local authority must create and maintain full and accurate records of its affairs, in accordance with normal, prudent business practice, including the records of any matter that is contracted out to an independent contractor.
(2) Every public office must maintain in an accessible form, so as to be able to be used for subsequent reference, all public records that are in its control, until their disposal is authorised by or under this Act or required by or under another Act.
(3) Every local authority must maintain in an accessible form, so as to be able to be used for subsequent reference, all protected records that are in its control, until their disposal is authorised by or under this Act.
2) Developments with the ‘railroading’ of the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Act 2010, and implications regarding the application of ‘due diligence’ to the current seven New Zealand United Water contracts.
(Please note that South Australia Water are NOT renewing their contract with United Water South Australia.)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/24/2935983.htm
United Water losing Adelaide contract
Posted Thu Jun 24, 2010 1:13pm AEST
United Water and its 470 local workers have lost the contract to manage Adelaide pipe and sewerage network.
SA Water has decided not to shortlist the French-owned company for a new contract, due to start from the middle of next year.
The South Australian Government last year accused United Water of breaching its contract.
Treasurer Kevin Foley says people have been paying too much for their water.
“South Australian water users have paid more for water to the tune of tens of millions of dollars by a failed Liberal government water privatisation to the French,” he said.
A case went to court but both parties recently agreed to allow an independent expert to resolve their dispute. ……………”
_____________________________________________________
3) The continuing persecution of Water Pressure Group members over disputed water services accounts.
(Please be advised that I have included detailed background information FYI which I do not intend to cover in full.
My proposed address to Council will be brief and to the point.)
Yours sincerely,
Penny Bright
Media Spokesperson
Water Pressure Group
Judicially recognised Public Watchdog on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters.
“Anti-corruption campaigner”.
Attendee: Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference 2009
Attendee: Transparency International’s 14th Anti-Corruption Conference 2010
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com
Ph (09) 846 9825
021 211 4 127
|
show details Dec 10 (5 days ago)
|
Mayor Len Brown,
Thank you for granting speaking rights at the Auckland Council meeting to be held on Thursday 16 December 2010 at 10am, Level 2, Reception Lounge, Auckland Town Hall.
Regards,
Penny
Penny Bright
Media Spokesperson
Water Pressure Group
Judicially recognised Public Watchdog on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters.
“Anti-corruption campaigner”.
Attendee: Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference 2009
Attendee: Transparency International’s 14th Anti-Corruption Conference 2010
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com
Ph (09) 846 9825
021 211 4 127
Dear Penny,Your request to speak as a deputation at the next Governing Body meeting of Auckland Council has been granted by Mayor Len Brown. The meeting is on Thursday, 16 December 2010 at 10 am in the Reception Lounge, Level 2 of the Auckland Town Hall and you have 10 minutes to address the meeting.I confirm that I have provided a copy of your request to the Mayor and Councillors.Regards,Mike Giddey | Committee Secretary
Democracy Services
Ph 09 307 7565 | Extn (40) 7565 | Mobile 027 221 7183 | Fax 09 307 7579
Auckland Council, Level 14, Civic Building, 1 Greys Avenue, Auckland
Visit our website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
URGENT! Am registered at Transparency International Conference but need airfares and accommodation!
1 November 2010
Have YOU got a $20 donation to support fighting corruption in NZ?
Transparency International are holding their 14th Anti-Corruption Conference from 10 – 14 November 2010, in Bangkok, Thailand.
A BIG thank you to those who have donated so far.
I have now paid for my registration and have a place at the Conference.
When 75 people donate $20 – I will have enough money for airfares and accommodation.
Any donations will be an ‘investment’ in the fight against corruption in New Zealand!
Kiwibank
Account Name: P M Bright
Account Number: 38-9010-0725719-00
Hope you can help!
It is Transparency International’s ‘Corruption Perception Index’ – that New Zealand is supposed to lead the world.
I want to ask Transparency International heavyweights – to their faces, how on earth NZ can be ‘perceived’ to be the ‘least corrupt country in the world’ – when we have so little genuine transparency in so many areas?
Issues I intend to raise, include, but are not limited to the following:
1) Because details of ‘contracts issued’ are not published in local or central government Annual Reports, residents and ratepayers, and taxpayers don’t know where billions of dollars of public monies are being spent.
We are NOT being given the ‘devilish detail’ of the name of the contractor; the value, term and scope of the contract. If NZ was truly ‘transparent’, this information would be published in Annual Reports so it was available for public scrutiny.
2) There is no mandatory statutory requirement for ‘Registers of Interests’ for local government elected representatives, or council staff responsible for signing off contracts worth hundreds of millions of citizens and ratepayers hard-earned dollars.
HOW CAN CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS BE CHECKED IF THEY ARE NOT DECLARED IN THE FIRST PLACE?
3) There has never been any ‘due diligence/ cost-benefit’ analysis since the last council amalgamations; of the ‘contracting-out’ model; or of the Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) model – yet the Auckland $UPERCITY has been forced upon the public of the Auckland region without a binding vote of citizens and ratepayers.
4)There is no ‘Code of Conduct’ for NZ MPs.
5)NZ Ministers can hold shares.
(Australian Federal Government Ministers cannot.)
6)There is no ‘Register of Lobbyists’, so that there is transparency regarding who is lobbying Ministers, and on whose behalf.
7) There is no ‘quarantine period’, particularly for Ministers, when leaving public office for the private sector.
8) NZ has no equivalent ‘INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION’, ie: we have no statutory third party ‘Public Watchdog’ which is tasked with PREVENTING corruption and corrupt practices.
The Police, SFO, Office of the Auditor-General, all deal with complaints AFTER the event.
(If they bother to act after they have been provided with facts and evidence.)
9)NZ has very little legislation which enforces transparency in public office, but has been pushing through legislation which encroaches on the privacy and civil liberties of ordinary citizens.
(Search and Surveillance legislation).
10 ) NZ lacks the most basic form of transparency in our judiciary when court proceedings are NOT recorded. Particularly in the High Court, I have witnessed and personally experienced the failure to record proceedings, and failure to provide transcripts or recordings of proceedings.
HOW CAN JUSTICE BE DONE OR BE SEEN TO BE DONE WHEN THERE IS NO RECORD IN COURT OF WHAT WAS DONE??
11) Judgments made in public courts are being suppressed by Judges making ‘Court Orders’ based on ‘judicial discretion’ – NOT the ‘rule of law.
12) Members of Transparency International New Zealand, after denying membership to citizens actively fighting corruption here in New Zealand,had Police arrest two of us after denying access to the Transparency International NZ AGM on 9 November 2009 – International Anti-Corruption day.
____________________________________________________________________A BIG thank you to those who have donated so far.
I have now paid for my registration and have a place at the Conference.
When 75 people donate $20 – I will have enough money for airfares and accommodation.
Any donations will be an ‘investment’ in the fight against corruption in New Zealand!
Kiwibank
Account Name: P M Bright
Account Number: 38-9010-0725719-00
Penny
Penny Bright
Media Spokesperson
Water Pressure Group
Judicially recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters.
“Anti-corruption campaigner”.
waterpressure@gmail.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________
28 September 2010
Setting the global agenda
Innovation and change
2010 IACC hosts
Contact
This November more than 1,000 people are heading to Bangkok to tackle some of the most pressing global challenges at the 14th International Anti-Corruption Conference (IACC). Since 1983, the conference series has served as the leading international platform for those committed to advancing the global governance agenda. The importance of transparency and anti-corruption has steadily risen on national, regional and international agendas. Yet the challenges we face today – a global economy still reeling from a severe recession, a global community lacking consensus on a binding climate agreement, and stumbling progress towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals – have eroded public trust in governments and institutions.
The 14th IACC seeks to address these challenges head on with its theme “Restoring Trust: Global Action for Transparency”. Under that banner, participants and visionary speakers from civil society, business, government, academia and the media will address the following issues at five plenary sessions and more than 40 workshops:
>> Global peace and security
Insecurity caused by illegal networks destabilises social, economic and political orders worldwide, while individuals, especially the most vulnerable, bear the biggest cost – in many cases with their own lives.
>> Fuelling transparency and accountability in the natural resources and energy markets
So many of the countries endowed with great natural resource wealth remain home to some of the world’s poorest people. Fostering greater transparency and accountability in the extractive industries is critical to improving people’s lives and our environment.
>> Climate governance: ensuring a collective commitment
The effects of climate change are already being felt around the world, requiring a globally coordinated response. Transparency and effective monitoring are crucial to ensuring corruption does not undermine climate change adaptation and mitigation initiatives.
>> Strengthening global action for an accountable corporate world
A lack of transparency and failed oversight triggered the financial crisis, leading to a crisis of investor confidence and public trust. The time has come for financial markets to be forged in the spirit of transparency and accountability to the benefit of everyone.
>> Reaching our millennium development goals
World leaders have recently met at a UN summit to determine how to build on progress made in the past decade towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Removing the brakes corruption puts on development will be key to accelerating progress in the remaining five years.
A key objective of the IACC is to bring practitioners and decision makers together to create change and confront the view that corruption cannot be beaten. The Bangkok IACC will offer multiple platforms to foster creativity and thematic exchanges. A special feature will be the People’s Empowerment Initiative, organised as an open format BarCamp, where a small number of speakers deliver 20 minute inspirational speeches on their areas of expertise. Priority issues for the People’s Empowerment Initiative include:
* Social media, social monitoring, whistleblowing and complaint mechanisms
* Citizen engagement in collective action, and the application of technology and marketing for social outreach and activism
* Empowering the victims of corruption through civil and criminal litigation.
Following the speeches, participants will have the opportunity to exchange ideas in an open marketplace. The People’s Empowerment Initiative sessions will take place on days two, three and four of the conference.
For the first time the IACC, in collaboration with the host country, will welcome the Leadership Forum, a round table discussion facilitating a cross-country dialogue between heads of state. Participating leaders will be announced on http://www.14iacc.org in early October.
A much anticipated highlight of each IACC is the conference declaration. The IACC declarations serve as testimony to the spirit of the conferences. The Guatemala Declaration drawn up at the 12th IACC, for instance, records the commitment of Central American countries and the Dominican Republic to a corruption-free zone. Drawn up during the conference, the Bangkok Declaration will capture the essence of the 14th IACC discussions.
The IACC facilitates exchange and dialogue between people from around the globe who share a common vision: eliminating corruption. If you would like to attend please visit http://www.14iacc.org and register before 31 October 2010. Onsite registration will be available during the conference.
Confirmed speakers include:
* Alan L. Boeckmann, Chairman of the board and CEO, Fluor Corporation
* Prof Paul Collier, Professor of Economics and Director for the Centre for the Study of African Economics, University of Oxford
* Georg Kell, Executive Director, UN Global Compact
* Ashok Khosla, President, International Union for Conservation of Nature
* Haruhiko Kuroda, President, Asian Development Bank
* Kunio Mikuriya Secretary General, World Customs Organization
* Salil Shetty, Secretary General, Amnesty International
* and many more…
Press accreditation for the 14th IACC is available for all journalists. Please visit the Press Accreditation Guidelines.
The 14th IACC is being hosted jointly by the IACC Council, the Royal Thai Government, the Thai Ministry of Justice, the office of the country’s National Anti-Corruption Commission, Transparency International and Transparency Thailand.
For more details please write to: info@14iacc.org
Press Release: PROTEST AGAINST THE AUCKLAND $UPERCITY AND THE CORRUPT CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF AUCKLAND!
1 November 2010
PROTEST AGAINST THE AUCKLAND $UPERCITY AND THE CORRUPT CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF AUCKLAND!
“Auckland Council Inauguration”
WHEN: MONDAY EVENING 1 NOVEMBER 2010
TIME: 5.30PM
WHERE: OUTSIDE AUCKLAND TOWN HALL
QUEEN ST, AUCKLAND CITY
“Serious questions regarding major conflicts of interest, lack of transparency and arguably corrupt practices regarding the Auckland $UPERCITY have still not been answered,” says Water Pressure Group Media Spokesperson Penny Bright.
“That is why, as a registered attendee, I will be raising these, and other questions at Transparency International’s 14th Conference in Thailand from 10 -14 November.
I will be seeking advice from anti-corruption international ‘heavyweights’ on whether the following constitute potentially corrupt practices.”
1) “How did Mark Ford, Executive Chair of the Auckland Transition Agency (ATA), tasked with setting up the ‘Supercity’ framework, end up with two of the ‘top jobs’ himself?
CEO of Watercare and Chair of the ‘statutory entity’ – Auckland Transport?
How was this not a clear ‘conflict of interest’?
2) Why did Mark Ford, as CEO, appoint water privatisers to key executive staff roles in publicly-owned Watercare Services – the ‘wholesale’ water/wastewater ‘ services provider to the Auckland region?
ie: David Hawkins, the former Mayor of Papakura District Council who played a pivotal role in privatising water services to United Water, now 100% owned by Veolia Water – the world’s biggest water multinational.
ie: Graham Wood, former Managing Director of United Water South Australia, to the position of General Manager Operations of Watercare Services, in or about 2007.
3) Why won’t Mark Ford disclose what, (if any) interests he had or may have, either pecuniary or non-pecuniary with:
1) United Water;
2) Veolia Water,
3) Veolia Transport (who have the contract with ARTA (of which he was Chair since 2007) to operate train services on the Auckland Passenger Rail Network.
4) Why, on the Watercare Services Ltd website, when Mark Ford was previously CEO, there was no section which covered the Watercare Shareholders Group,(the governing body made up of representatives of the Councils which own Watercare Services Ltd) 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.
How was (is) this ‘transparent’?
5) Where is the information which tells residents and ratepayers of the Auckland region where EXACTLY our monies are being spent?
From Franklin to Rodney, where is the publicly available information which shows over a range of 112 possible Councils services, which services are provided ‘in-house’; which are provided by CCOs; which services have been contracted out?
For council services which have been contracted out, where is the publicly available information which gives the name of the contractor, term, value and scope of the contractor?
If information detailing where public monies are being spent is not publicly available for public scrutiny – how is this ‘transparent’?
6) Where is the ‘Register of Interests’ for the Auckland Council elected representatives and their spouses; and council staff responsible for signing off contracts worth hundreds of millions of citizens and ratepayers hard-earned dollars?
HOW CAN CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS BE CHECKED IF THEY ARE NOT DECLARED IN THE FIRST PLACE?
If such ‘Register of Interests’ do not exist, or are not publicly available – how is this ‘transparent’?
7) Why has there has never been any ‘due diligence/ cost-benefit’ analysis since the last council amalgamations; of the ‘contracting-out’ model; or of the Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) model – yet the Auckland $UPERCITY has been forced upon the public of the Auckland region without a binding vote of citizens and ratepayers?
If such changes are forced upon the public, without any evidential basis to support that they will benefit the public majority – how is this not a form of ‘misuse of public office for private gain’ – it the beneficiaries of such changes are going to be the private sector?
How is this not corrupt?
Yet, according to Transparency International’s ‘Corruption Perception Index’ – New Zealand, along with Denmark and Singapore is currently ranked as the least corrupt country in the world?
If New Zealand is ‘perceived’ to be one of the least corrupt countries in the world – then arguably – shouldn’t we be the most ‘transparent’?
These matters that pertain to the Auckland $UPERCITY, and others I intend to raise at the Transparency International Conference – to help provide a New Zealand corruption ‘reality check’ against the New Zealand corruption ‘perception’.”
Penny Bright
Media Spokesperson
Water Pressure Group
Judicially recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ for Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters.
“Anti-corruption https://waterpressure.wordpress.com
Ph (09) 846 9825
021 211 4 127
PROTEST! AGAINST THE AUCKLAND $UPERCITY AND THE CORRUPT CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF AUCKLAND! Monday evening 1 November,5.30pm outside Auckland Town Hall
31 October 2010
PROTEST!
AGAINST THE AUCKLAND $UPERCITY AND THE CORRUPT CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF AUCKLAND!
“Auckland Council Inauguration”
WHEN: MONDAY EVENING 1 NOVEMBER 2010
TIME: 5.30PM
WHERE: OUTSIDE AUCKLAND TOWN HALL
QUEEN ST, AUCKLAND CITY
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
Help ‘Public Watchdog’ Penny Bright ‘blow the whistle’ at Transparency International’s 14th Anti-Corruption Conference 10 – 14 November 2010!
16 October 2010
Transparency International are holding their 14th Anti-Corruption Conference from 10 – 14 November 2010, in Bangkok, Thailand.
It is Transparency International’s ‘Corruption Perception Index’ – that New Zealand is supposed to lead the world.
www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/cpi_2009_table
I want to ask Transparency International heavyweights – to their faces, how on earth NZ can be ‘perceived’ to be the ‘least corrupt country in the world’ – when we have so little genuine transparency in so many areas?
Issues I intend to raise, include, but are not limited to the following:
1) Because details of ‘contracts issued’ are not published in local or central government Annual Reports, residents and ratepayers, and taxpayers don’t know where billions of dollars of public monies are being spent.
We are NOT being given the ‘devilish detail’ of the name of the contractor; the value, term and scope of the contract. If NZ was truly ‘transparent’, this information would be published in Annual Reports so it was available for public scrutiny.
2) There is no mandatory statutory requirement for ‘Registers of Interests’ for local government elected representatives, or council staff responsible for signing off contracts worth hundreds of millions of citizens and ratepayers hard-earned dollars.
HOW CAN CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS BE CHECKED IF THEY ARE NOT DECLARED IN THE FIRST PLACE?
3) There has never been any ‘due diligence/ cost-benefit’ analysis since the last council amalgamations; of the ‘contracting-out’ model; or of the Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) model – yet the Auckland $UPERCITY has been forced upon the public of the Auckland region without a binding vote of citizens and ratepayers.
4)There is no ‘Code of Conduct’ for NZ MPs.
5)NZ Ministers can hold shares.
(Australian Federal Government Ministers cannot.)
6)There is no ‘Register of Lobbyists’, so that there is transparency regarding who is lobbying Ministers, and on whose behalf.
7) There is no ‘quarantine period’, particularly for Ministers, when leaving public office for the private sector.
8) NZ has no equivalent ‘INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION’, ie: we have no statutory third party ‘Public Watchdog’ which is tasked with PREVENTING corruption and corrupt practices.
The Police, SFO, Office of the Auditor-General, all deal with complaints AFTER the event.
(If they bother to act after they have been provided with facts and evidence.)
9)NZ has very little legislation which enforces transparency in public office, but has been pushing through legislation which encroaches on the privacy and civil liberties of ordinary citizens.
(Search and Surveillance legislation).
10 ) NZ lacks the most basic form of transparency in our judiciary when court proceedings are NOT recorded. Particularly in the High Court, I have witnessed and personally experienced the failure to record proceedings, and failure to provide transcripts or recordings of proceedings.
HOW CAN JUSTICE BE DONE OR BE SEEN TO BE DONE WHEN THERE IS NO RECORD IN COURT OF WHAT WAS DONE??
11) Judgments made in public courts are being suppressed by Judges making ‘Court Orders’ based on ‘judicial discretion’ – NOT the ‘rule of law.
12) Members of Transparency International New Zealand, after denying membership to citizens actively fighting corruption here in New Zealand,had Police arrest two of us after denying access to the Transparency International NZ AGM on 9 November 2009 – International Anti-Corruption day.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
When 125 people donate $20 – I will have enough money to get to and attend this Conference.
Any donations will be an ‘investment’ in the fight against corruption in New Zealand!
Kiwibank
Account Name: P M Bright
Account Number: 38-9010-0725719-00
Hope you can help!
Thanks!
Penny
Penny Bright
Media Spokesperson
Water Pressure Group
Judicially recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters.
“Anti-corruption campaigner”.
waterpressure@gmail.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________
28 September 2010
Setting the global agenda
Innovation and change
2010 IACC hosts
Contact
This November more than 1,000 people are heading to Bangkok to tackle some of the most pressing global challenges at the 14th International Anti-Corruption Conference (IACC). Since 1983, the conference series has served as the leading international platform for those committed to advancing the global governance agenda. The importance of transparency and anti-corruption has steadily risen on national, regional and international agendas. Yet the challenges we face today – a global economy still reeling from a severe recession, a global community lacking consensus on a binding climate agreement, and stumbling progress towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals – have eroded public trust in governments and institutions.
The 14th IACC seeks to address these challenges head on with its theme “Restoring Trust: Global Action for Transparency”. Under that banner, participants and visionary speakers from civil society, business, government, academia and the media will address the following issues at five plenary sessions and more than 40 workshops:
>> Global peace and security
Insecurity caused by illegal networks destabilises social, economic and political orders worldwide, while individuals, especially the most vulnerable, bear the biggest cost – in many cases with their own lives.
>> Fuelling transparency and accountability in the natural resources and energy markets
So many of the countries endowed with great natural resource wealth remain home to some of the world’s poorest people. Fostering greater transparency and accountability in the extractive industries is critical to improving people’s lives and our environment.
>> Climate governance: ensuring a collective commitment
The effects of climate change are already being felt around the world, requiring a globally coordinated response. Transparency and effective monitoring are crucial to ensuring corruption does not undermine climate change adaptation and mitigation initiatives.
>> Strengthening global action for an accountable corporate world
A lack of transparency and failed oversight triggered the financial crisis, leading to a crisis of investor confidence and public trust. The time has come for financial markets to be forged in the spirit of transparency and accountability to the benefit of everyone.
>> Reaching our millennium development goals
World leaders have recently met at a UN summit to determine how to build on progress made in the past decade towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Removing the brakes corruption puts on development will be key to accelerating progress in the remaining five years.
A key objective of the IACC is to bring practitioners and decision makers together to create change and confront the view that corruption cannot be beaten. The Bangkok IACC will offer multiple platforms to foster creativity and thematic exchanges. A special feature will be the People’s Empowerment Initiative, organised as an open format BarCamp, where a small number of speakers deliver 20 minute inspirational speeches on their areas of expertise. Priority issues for the People’s Empowerment Initiative include:
* Social media, social monitoring, whistleblowing and complaint mechanisms
* Citizen engagement in collective action, and the application of technology and marketing for social outreach and activism
* Empowering the victims of corruption through civil and criminal litigation.
Following the speeches, participants will have the opportunity to exchange ideas in an open marketplace. The People’s Empowerment Initiative sessions will take place on days two, three and four of the conference.
For the first time the IACC, in collaboration with the host country, will welcome the Leadership Forum, a round table discussion facilitating a cross-country dialogue between heads of state. Participating leaders will be announced on http://www.14iacc.org in early October.
A much anticipated highlight of each IACC is the conference declaration. The IACC declarations serve as testimony to the spirit of the conferences. The Guatemala Declaration drawn up at the 12th IACC, for instance, records the commitment of Central American countries and the Dominican Republic to a corruption-free zone. Drawn up during the conference, the Bangkok Declaration will capture the essence of the 14th IACC discussions.
The IACC facilitates exchange and dialogue between people from around the globe who share a common vision: eliminating corruption. If you would like to attend please visit http://www.14iacc.org and register before 31 October 2010. Onsite registration will be available during the conference.
Confirmed speakers include:
* Alan L. Boeckmann, Chairman of the board and CEO, Fluor Corporation
* Prof Paul Collier, Professor of Economics and Director for the Centre for the Study of African Economics, University of Oxford
* Georg Kell, Executive Director, UN Global Compact
* Ashok Khosla, President, International Union for Conservation of Nature
* Haruhiko Kuroda, President, Asian Development Bank
* Kunio Mikuriya Secretary General, World Customs Organization
* Salil Shetty, Secretary General, Amnesty International
* and many more…
Press accreditation for the 14th IACC is available for all journalists. Please visit the Press Accreditation Guidelines.
The 14th IACC is being hosted jointly by the IACC Council, the Royal Thai Government, the Thai Ministry of Justice, the office of the country’s National Anti-Corruption Commission, Transparency International and Transparency Thailand.
For more details please write to: info@14iacc.org
Keep up to date and follow us on Twitter
OPEN LETTER/OIA REQUEST TO THE EXECUTIVE CHAIR OF THE AUCKLAND TRANSITION AGENCY- MARK FORD: Where EXACTLY are public rates monies being spent NOW across the Auckland region?
11 October 2010
OPEN LETTER/OIA REQUEST TO THE EXECUTIVE CHAIR OF THE AUCKLAND TRANSITION AGENCY
– MARK FORD:
Where EXACTLY are public rates monies being spent NOW across the Auckland region?
Dear Mark,
As a judicially-recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters; and an “Anti-Corruption campaigner”, I have raised and support the call for the ‘books to be opened’, and for the public of the Auckland region to be told EXACTLY where our rates monies are being spent across the Auckland region.
Given New Zealand’s status as the ‘least corrupt country in the world’, (according to Transparency International’s ‘Corruption Perception Index’ – arguably we should be the most ‘transparent’.
Arguably, if the underpinning principles of ‘open, transparent and democratically accountable’ local government were being upheld – I would not thus have to request this information – it would already be publicly available.
But it’s not – so I am.
According to a list drawn up by the Royal Commission on Auckland Regional Governance – there are a possible 112 services provided by Councils over the Auckland region.
PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
1) On a Council by Council basis:
Franklin, Papakura, and Rodney District Councils;
Auckland, Manukau, Waitakere and North Shore City Councils;
Auckland Regional Council
Which services are:
a) Currently provided ‘in-house’;
b) Provided by a Council Controlled Organisation(CCO);
c) Contracted out;
d) Not Applicable (not provided by that Council)?
2) On a Council by Council basis:
Franklin, Papakura, and Rodney District Councils;
Auckland, Manukau, Waitakere and North Shore City Councils;
Auckland Regional Council
For each one of the 112 ‘Council service’s, on a ‘one-by-one’ basis, please provide the following information on those services which have been ‘contracted out’:
a) The name of the contractor.
b) The length of the contract.
c) The value of the contract.
d) The general ‘scope’ of the contract.
The provision of this information will provide, for the FIRST TIME, to citizens and ratepayers of the Auckland region, a very accurate and current picture of WHERE EXACTLY OUR public rates monies are being spent.
In order to assist, I have attached two ‘templates’, to assist with the gathering of this information, so that a ‘datum’ can be established from which ‘cost-effectiveness’, and ‘prudent stewardship’ of public rates monies can be measured.
(I have previous experience as a Quality Assurance Co-ordinator, which has proved useful in establishing a framework to quantify this
information.)
3) The first template lists the total number of 112 services provided by Councils over the Auckland region.
(This list was drawn up by the Royal Commission for Auckland Regional Governance).
4) The second template lists on a Council by Council basis, for each one of the 112 ‘Council service’s, on a ‘one-by-one’ basis,
the following detailed information for those services which have been ‘contracted out’.
a) The name of the contractor.
b) The length of the contract.
c) The value of the contract.
d) The general ‘scope’ of the contract.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Please be advised that I first made this information available in my submission to the Royal Commission on
24 June 2008.
I then made this information available to elected representatives in the Auckland region on 8 July 2008, as follows:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
8 July 2008
OPEN LETTER TO ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES IN THE AUCKLAND REGION:
As a judicially recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters, it is my considered opinion that any proposals for ‘Regional Sustainable Development’ of the Auckland region, must be based on FACTS and EVIDENCE.
As I informed the Royal Commissioners on Tuesday 24 June 2008, there is NO base-line or datum upon which to measure ‘cost-effectiveness’ of future amalgamations of strategic assets or services.
To date, there has NEVER been a comprehensive ‘cost-benefit analysis’ since the last amalgamations in 1989, or of the ‘contracting out’ model for council services, compared to council’s providing those services ‘in-house’.
It must be an ABSOLUTE PRIORITY for both the Royal Commission and the Regional Sustainable Development Forum to gather the FACTS which show EXACTLY WHERE RATES MONIES ARE BEING CURRENTLY SPENT OVER THE AUCKLAND REGION.
(This exercise was NOT carried out by the ‘Rates Inquiry’ chaired by David Shand.)
To assist, I have produced two very straightforward templates which can be used to gather and compare these FACTS in a very simple way.
1) The first template lists the total number of 112 services provided by Councils over the Auckland region.
(This list was drawn up by the Royal Commission).
On a Council by Council basis, the question to be answered is:
Which services are currently provided ‘in-house’; provided by a Council Controlled Organisation(CCO); contracted out; or Not Applicable
(not provided by that Council).
2) The second template on a Council by Council basis, for each one of the 112 ‘Council service’s, on a ‘one-by-one’ basis, detailed
information on those which have been ‘contracted out’.
The name of the contractor.
The length of the contract.
The value of the contract.
The general ‘scope’ of the contract.
That way the public should have, for the FIRST TIME a very accurate and current picture of WHERE EXACTLY OUR rates monies are being spent.
3) The next step – once the FACTS have been gathered – should be to carry out the comprehensive ‘cost-benefit’ analysis to compare whether the ‘contracting out’ model has been to the benefit of the public rate-paying majority, as opposed to those to whom these contracts have been issued.
4) Regarding the water issue, again, as I explained to the Royal Commission, there has never been a comprehensive ‘cost-benefit analysis’ which proves:
That the public majority have benefitted from the Metrowater ‘commercialised’ model for water services;
That user-charges are ‘fairer’ as opposed to violating the basic human right to affordable water services by disproportionately burdening poorer families who NEED to use more water;
That ‘user-charges’ for water and wastewater services encourage water conservation.
(My questions to Metrowater CEO Jim Bentley and his response, confirm this. Copies attached.)
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
SUBMISSION TO THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON AUCKLAND REGIONAL GOVERNANCE –
24 June 2008 Penny Bright
WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE BY THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON AUCKLAND REGIONALGOVERNANCE IN ORDER TO MEET YOUR TERMS OF REFERENCE:
On behalf of the Water Pressure Group, the considered opinion of Media Spokesperson and judicially recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ on Metrowater, water and Auckland Regional Governance matters.
” Appointment and order of reference
KNOW YE that We, reposing trust and confidence in your integrity, knowledge, and ability, do, by this Our Commission, nominate,
constitute, and appoint you, The Honourable PETER SALMON QC, Dame MARGARET BAZLEY, and DAVID SHAND to be a Commission to receive representations on, inquire into, investigate, and report on the local government arrangements (including institutions, mechanisms, and processes) that are required in the Auckland region over the foreseeable future in order to maximise, in a cost effective manner,—
(a) the current and future well-being of the region and its communities; and
(b) the region’s contribution to wider national objectives and outcomes:”
1) The FACT is – that there has never been a comprehensive ‘cost-benefit’ analysis since the last council amalgamations in 1989.
EVIDENCE of this is confirmed by Official Information Act replies from:
a) Auckland City Council. (OIA reply 9 May 2008)
b) Manukau City Council. (OIA reply 7 April 2008)
c) Waitakere City Council. (OIA reply 8 April 2008)
d) Franklin District Council. (OIA reply 6 March 2008)
e) Rodney District Council. (OIA reply 14 April 2008)
2) The FACT is – that there has never been a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of the ‘contracting-out’ model, compared with
the provision of council services in-house.
EVIDENCE of this is OIA replies from:
a) Auckland City Council. (OIA reply 9 May 2008)
b) Manukau City Council. (OIA reply 7 April 2008)
c) Waitakere City Council. (OIA reply 8 April 2008)
d) Franklin District Council. (OIA reply 6 March 2008)
e) Rodney District Council. (OIA reply 14 April 2008)
3) Thus – there is no FACTUAL or EVIDENTIAL ‘base-line’ upon which to use as a starting point to quantify which ‘local government
arrangements (including institutions, mechanisms and processes) ARE ‘cost-effective.
4) At this point in time – there is no FACTUAL or EVIDENTIAL overview showing EXACTLY where residents and ratepayers monies are actually being spent over the Auckland region.
This information is hidden from the public because Council Annual Reports do NOT reveal details of ‘contracts issued’ to public
scrutiny – despite the underpinning principles of the Local Government Act 2002 requiring ‘open, transparent and democratically accountable’local government.
5) As this Royal Commission should surely base its recommendations on FACTS and EVIDENCE – rather than unsubstantiated opinion –( irrespective of how often it might be repeated) – here is a series of practical recommendations:
Given that as Commissioners you are empowered under “Consultation and procedures”
“(d) to use relevant expertise, including consultancy and secretarial services, and to conduct, where appropriate, your own research:
And you are empowered, in carrying this our Commission into effect,—
(a) to prepare and publish discussion papers from time to time on topics relevant to the inquiry;
(b) unless you think it proper in any case to withhold any evidence or information obtained by you in the exercise of the powers conferred upon you,—
(i) to include in any discussion papers prepared and published by you all or any of that evidence or information; and
(ii) to publish or otherwise disclose in such other ways that you think fit all or any of that evidence or information:
RECOMMENDATION ONE:
The Royal Commission research exactly where rates monies are being spent in the Auckland region for 2008-2009 financial year.
Total expenditure:
a) Wages and salaries:
b) Contracts to the private sector for goods, services and people.
RECOMMENDATION TWO:
The Royal Commission research an ‘overview’ of which of a possible 112 council services are provided in-house, contracted out, by CCOs or ‘Not Applicable’.
(See “Template for the Auckland Region showing which Council services have been contracted out.”
RECOMMENDATION THREE:
The Royal Commission research a comparison of contracts issued across Auckland region on a service by service basis.
(See “Template for the Auckland region showing and comparing contracted service details.”)
RECOMMENDATION FOUR:
The Royal Commission research a ‘cost-benefit analysis of ‘in-house’ council service provision, compared to contracting out, for each Council area.
RECOMMENDATION FIVE:
The Royal Commission research a ‘cost-benefit analysis’ of the Metrowater model , Manukau Water and United Water models compared with former ‘in house’ council provision.
Please refer to my questions of Metrowater CEO Jim Bentley, and his reply dated 15 April 2007:
“Q: 4. Has Metrowater ever completed a comprehensive ‘cost-benefit’ analysis since Metrowater’s inception in 1997, which PROVES that:
a) Metrowater is ‘more ‘efficient’.
b) ‘User-charges’ are fairer’.
c) ‘User-charges’ encourage conservation.
“A: 4. a) I am not aware of such a cost-benefit analysis but Metrowater takes part in benchmarking within the Auckland and
Australasian water sectors.
b) A cost-benefit analysis will not tell you if “user-charges” are fairer. It is Metrowater’s view that it is fair for customers to pay
according to how much they use.
c) The historical data would indicate that volumes reduced significantly following the introduction of volumetric charging.
There are many media articles on this subject including a recent comment in the Dominion Post, quoting the reduction in water use in
Auckland following the introduction of metering.
“5. Q. Has Metrowater ever completed a comprehensive ‘cost-benefit’ analysis since Metrowater’s inception in 1997, which PROVES that the contracting out of work associated with the provision of water services that was formally provided by Auckland City Council – is a ‘more efficient use of public money’?
“5. A. I am not aware of such an analysis. Most companies consider which activities should be retained in-house and which should be contracted- out. From time to time Metrowater reviews discrete functions to determine whether changes are required, whether for efficiency or service improvement reasons.”
RECOMMENDATION SIX:
The Royal Commission research a comprehensive study of Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) particularly for major infrastructural projects such as roading/transport and water service supplies, in order to ascertain that the public majority benefit rather than private
contractors.
LEGISLATIVE CHANGES:
1) The Royal Commission recommend that it becomes a MANDATORY REQUIREMENT under the Local Government Act that ‘contracts issued’ are detailed on council Annual Reports, so that they are available for public scrutiny, and ‘prudent stewardship’ can be exercised over OUR resources.
2) The Royal Commission recommend that it becomes a MANDATORY REQUIREMENT that corruption risk assessment is an integral part of council risk management assessment.
3) That because currently there is no statutory third party that monitors or audits for corruption risk, and that there are no audit processes in place to check for links between Council staff and contractors, Council staff and developers that Royal Commission recommend the establishment of a New Zealand Independent Commission Against Corruption based upon similar lines to the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption.
CONCLUSION:
Please be reminded that independently of the Royal Commission – that behind the public’s back – the ‘ONE PLAN’ for Auckland is secretly being worked on behind closed doors. (*1)
FOR WHOSE BENEFIT?
Equally, independently of the Royal Commission, is my Court case – which will be a test case – again in defence of ‘open, transparent and democratically accountable’ local government.
I am disputing and refusing to pay my rates until Auckland City Council:
(a) publishes full details of all monies spent by Auckland City Council on private sector contracts for ‘goods, services and people’ ;
(b)undertakes to conducts a full inquiry/ cost benefit analysis into
(i) the ‘contracting out’ model for provision of Auckland City Council services as opposed to Council ‘in-house’ provision and;
(ii) the Metrowater ‘commercialised’ model for provision of Auckland City Council water and wastewater services to determine on the basis of facts and evidence:-
* Whether Metrowater’s ‘user-charges’ for water and wastewater services are ‘fairer’, or violate the basic human right of affordable water by disproportionately burdening poorer families;
Whether Metrowater’s user-charges for water and wastewater services encourage water conservation;
*Whether Metrowater is ‘more efficient’, and the contracting out of water and wastewater maintenance and operation expenses is more cost-effective to the rate paying majority compared with Auckland City Council providing these services ‘in-house’ via their ‘Works Department’.
*I ENCOURAGE OTHER CONCERNED CITIZENS TO JOIN ME.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
*1 CORRECTION: The public were excluded from a Regional Sustainable Development Forum ‘workshop’ 9 April 2008.
Other meetings of the RSDF have been open to the public – but there is no ‘Public Forum’ opportunity to address this forum.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Yours sincerely,
Penny Bright
Media Spokesperson
Water Pressure Group
Judicially recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters.
“Anti-corruption campaigner”
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com
Ph (09) 846 9825
021 211 4 127
Open Letter’ to Mark Ford, appointed CEO of a bigger Watercare and Chair of the ‘Statutory Entity’ Auckland Transport .
8 October 2010
‘Open Letter’ to Mark Ford, appointed CEO of a bigger Watercare and Chair of the ‘Statutory Entity’ Auckland Transport .
cc: ‘Interim’ CEO of Watercare Services Ltd:
Ian Parton –
please ensure that this email is passed on to the Chair and all Directors of Watercare Services Ltd. Thanks.
Dear Mark,
Eighteen months ago, you left your positions as CEO of Watercare Services Ltd, and Chair of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA) as the appointed Executive Chair of the Auckland Transition Agency.
( The unelected appointed body to set up the ‘$UPERCITY’ structure for the corporate takeover of the Auckland region).
Now you are set to go back through this ‘revolving’ corporate door to return as CEO of a far bigger Watercare and Chair of Auckland Transport.
Remember what the Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hide said on 22 May 2009, when he announced your appointment?
“I am very pleased to be able to announce a transition agency of this calibre,” Mr Hide said.
“Mr Ford is highly respected in his present leadership roles as Chief Executive of Watercare Services Ltd and Chair of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA). He has a strong understanding of Auckland governance and a proven record in managing complex situations and leading high performing teams.
To manage any perception of a conflict of interest,
Mr Ford is to resign from his present positions with Watercare and ARTA. ”
(My underlining).
You were tasked with heading the organisation setting up the $UPERCITY framework – particularly the seven Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) into which 75% of Auckland regional rates are to be paid – then you end up with arguably two of the ‘top jobs’ – CEO of Watercare and Chair of the ‘statutory entity’ – Auckland Transport?
Nice work!
How is this not a major ‘conflict of interest’?
Arguably, you have used your position as the Executive Chair of the Auckland Transition Agency (ATA) to help ‘feather your own nest’?
Is this not arguably ‘misuse of public office for private gain’ – a form of ‘corrupt practice’?
Particularly when the Directors of Watercare Services arguably ‘your mates,’ (as you have known a number of them for years as CEO of Watercare from 1994 – 2007), appoint you in an uncontested selection?
“This is the most demanding and important corporate assignment in New Zealand. That is why we’ve chosen someone of Mr Ford’s calibre and appointed him as Executive Chairman to ensure he has the powers to fulfil his role effectively.” (Rodney Hide, 22 May 2009)).
If you have such a ‘strong understanding of Auckland governance,’ are so ‘highly respected’, and of such ‘callibre’ – why is it that you appear to consider that the underpinning principles of the Local Government Act 2002 – ‘open, transparent and democratically accountable’ local government don’t apply to you?
WHY HAVE YOU NOT YET PROVIDED THE ANSWERS TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS?
(Please be reminded, you were first asked these questions, by email on 25 June 2010 and invited to reply in person to a Public Meeting held on 5 July 2010, calling for an investigation of the seven United Water New Zealand contracts.
You declined to attend the Public Meeting, and were then asked to provide answers to these questions in the form of an OIA reply on 2 July 2010.
These questions were still not answered.
Remember what you said about ‘transparency’, as published in the NZ Herald on 7 September 2010?
www.nzherald.co.nz/news/print.cfm?objectid=10671594
“Mark Ford, who will chair the mega-Auckland Transport CCO responsible for spending about $1.4 billion a year of ratepayers’ and taxpayers’ money, was relaxed at the possibility of public meetings being part of the statement of corporate intent between the council and the CCO.
“We have got to win over the confidence of the public.
There are various mechanisms – performance service, transparency and a whole series of things,” he said. ”
(My underlining).
Are these just empty ‘weasel words’?
There is, as you know, considerable public interest and concern about the ownership, operation and management, pricing and quality of Auckland water services.
If you do not answer these questions, then, in my considered opinion, you are quite simply, not ‘fit for duty’ because this proves by your practice – you are neither ‘open’ nor ‘transparent’.
I look forward to your prompt, (albeit belated) reply.
A) Information which explains why you, when CEO of Watercare Services Ltd, appointed known water privatiser, ex-Mayor of Papakura, David Hawkins, to the position of Corporate Liaison Manager for Watercare Services in 2000.
B) Information which confirms that you were aware of the Report of the Office of the Auditor General (OAG), in 1998, which was critical of a number of key aspects of the ‘Papakura franchise’, signed by David Hawkins as Mayor of Papakura in April 1997:
(These shortcomings were referred to in this recent ‘Regulatory Impact Statement’
www.dia.govt.nz/Pubforms.nsf/URL/Water_RIS…/Water_RIS_2010.doc
“REMOVING BARRIERS TO WATER INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2002 – REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT:
34. A potential risk is that councils lack expertise in the area of PPPs and other concession arrangements, and that developing such arrangements requires specialist skills. This was suggested in reports by the Auditor-General on the Papakura franchise agreement and the Wellington DBMO arrangement.[1]
35. In Papakura, for example, the Auditor-General noted that:
·the Council relied on limited internal and local expertise when setting up the agreement and it was not reviewed by an external expert;
·the franchise agreement inadequately documents the franchisee’s obligations to release particular information to the Council;
·the franchise agreement focused on performance indicators relating to price and quality, but indicators for customer service and asset management and development were not well defined; and
·there was a lack of agreement between the parties about how the condition of the infrastructure would be measured over the duration of the franchise – no baseline was established and an asset management plan was not undertaken.
[1] Controller and Auditor-General – 2006 report, as above; plus Report on Papakura District Council:
Water and Wastewater franchise, April 1998. ”
______________________________
C) Information which explains why you, when CEO of Watercare Services Ltd, appointed Graham Wood, to the position of General Manager Operations of Watercare Services,(in or about 2007), and what steps you took to:
1) Inform all elected representatives that made up the Watercare Shareholders Representative Group (SRG), of Graham Wood’s former position as the former Managing Director of United Water South Australia,
2) Inform the public of Graham Wood’s former position as the former Managing Director of United Water South Australia.
D) Information which explains the role played by David Hawkins and/or Graham Wood (if any) whilst working for Watercare in the securing of any NZ United Water contracts.
E) Information which explains why, on the Watercare Services Ltd website, when you were CEO, there was no section which covered the Watercare Shareholders Group, to make the following information publicly available: SRG meeting minutes; SRG reports ; information about which elected representatives were actually members of the SRG, and the like.
F) Disclosure of all / any interests (if any) you had or may have, either pecuniary or non-pecuniary with:
1) United Water;
2) Veolia Water,
3) Past or current members of the World Bank, including, but not limited to David Shand, the Head of the Rates Inquiry and one of the three Commissioners on the Royal commission of Inquiry into Auckland Regional Governance
G) Disclosure of all / any interests (if any) you had or may have, either pecuniary or non-pecuniary with Veolia Transport, who have the contract with ARTA (of which you were Chair since 2007) to operate train services on the Auckland Passenger Rail Network.
www.nzcid.org.nz/veoliatransport.html
VEOLIA TRANSPORT AUCKLAND
In 2004 Veolia Transport Auckland Limited was contracted to the Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA) to operate train services on the Auckland Passenger Rail Network. The contract has subsequently been extended through to 2014.
VEOLIA TRANSPORT (WORLDWIDE)
www.veolia.com/en/group/activities/transport-management.aspx
Veolia Transport, as a leading private operator of public transport, manage over 2.63 billion trips per year globally, thereby decreasing traffic congestion, combating climate change and avoiding over 4.1 million tons of Co2.
Veolia Transport is part of Veolia Environnement the world’s leading environmental services company.
www.beehive.govt.nz/release/mark+ford+lead+auckland+transition+agency
Mark Ford (Executive Chair)
CEO of Watercare Services Ltd since 1994 and Chairman of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority since 2007. Previous roles have included CEO of Auckland Regional Services Trust and CEO of NZ Forestry Corporation. )
______________________________
H) Information which confirms your position, as Executive Chair of the Auckland Transition Agency, on the request for a ‘full and thorough independent investigation of the pricing practices of private water company United Water’s seven contracts’ as requested in the following:
Petition 2008/60, presented by Su’a William Sio, on 9 December 2009:
“Requesting that the House of Representatives do not implement any legislative changes to the Local Government Act 2002 which would make it easier to privatise water services via changes to ‘contracting out’, and ‘Public Private Partnership’ (PPP) provisions, until a full and thorough independent investigation of the pricing practices of private water company United Water’s seven contracts in New Zealand has been undertaken.”
(This Petition is still an ‘Item of Business’ before the Local Government and Environment Select Committee – I checked on 8 October 2010.)
______________________________
FYI
Two ‘You Tube’ clips which explain the $UPERCITY
‘Organisational Flow Chart’:
The Auckland $UPERCITY ‘organisational flow chart’ visually shows in a way that words cannot describe, how this corporate takeover which you have helped to set up will work.
You know full well that this corporate structure cannot be made to serve the public and the public interest.
This information is now in the ‘public domain.’
part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H06yECiAsNM
part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhbrahaGi0Y
______________________________________________
Yours sincerely,
Penny Bright
Media spokesperson
Water Pressure Group
Judicially recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters.
“Anti-corruption campaigner”
AUCKLAND MAYORAL CANDIDATE
PH (09) 846 9825
021 211 4 127
-
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 