Public Watchdog Penny Bright kicks over a hornets’ nest on Kiwiblog!

www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/02/a_troll_complains.html#comment-798298

publicwatchdog (28) Says:
February 13th, 2011 at 11:13 pm

So – who else is asking Prime Minister John Key the questions that I am?

Like – “Is John Key personally benefiting from NZ’s growing indebtedness?”

(Given John Key’s admitted shareholding in the Bank of America?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXwNoaOpDMw

Anyone else ever made complaints to the Police or SFO about John Key over TranzRail?

Anyone else ever taken a private prosecution against John Key under s228 of the Crimes Act?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFTYZVQo-A8&NR=1

Not one sentence in the Herald over any of the above – but there were ‘man on the moon headlines’ against Winston Peters and NZ First – although he was never accused of ‘feathering his own nest’?

(Which arguably John Key was, over TranzRail when he attempted to flush out commercially sensitive information while he had an undisclosed pecuniary interest?)

The last person the smiling ‘corporate raider’ wants as an Independent Public Watchdog from INSIDE the House is Penny Bright.

There we go!

Looking forward to jamming all those anonymous, ‘ad hominum froth’ buttons on full!

Come on – ‘fill your boots’!

The nastier and more venomous the better – proves that I’m on target.

Kind regards,

Penny Bright
Future MP for Botany?
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com

URGENT ‘OPEN LETTER’ TO NZ PRIME MINISTER JOHN KEY:

Penny Bright
to j.key@ministers.govt.nz,
m.mccully@ministers.govt.nz
cc A.King@parliament.govt.nz,
aaron.gilmore@parliament.govt.nz,
ahan.young@parliament.govt.nz,
allan.peachey@parliament.govt.nz,
amy.adams@parliament.govt.nz,
anderton.wigram@xtra.co.nz,
angela.bray@parliament.govt.nz,
ashraf.choudhary@parliament.govt.nz,
b.english@ministers.govt.nz,
bb@brendonburns.co.nz,
blueandgold@parliament.govt.nz,
brendon.burns@parliament.govt.nz,
c.finlayson@ministers.govt.nz,
carol.beaumont@parliament.govt.nz,
cartermp@xtra.co.nz,
catherine.delahunty@parliament.govt.nz,
charles.chauvel@parliament.govt.nz,
chester.borrows@parliament.govt.nz,
chester.hawera@xtra.co.nz,
chester.wanganui@xtra.co.nz,
chris.carter@parliament.govt.nz,
chris.hipkins@parliament.govt.nz,
chris.tremain@national.org.nz,
clare.curran@parliament.govt.nz,
clayton.cosgrove@parliament.govt.nz,
claytoncosgrovekaiapoi@xtra.co.nz,
colin.kingmp@xtra.co.nz,
craig.foss@parliament.govt.nz,
craigfoss@backingthebay.co.nz,
d.carter@ministers.govt.nz,
darien.fenton@parliament.govt.nz,
darren.hughes@parliament.govt.nz,
david.bennett@parliament.govt.nz,
david.cunliffe@parliament.govt.nz,
david.garrett@parliament.govt.nz,
david.parker@parliament.govt.nz,
dcunliffe@xtra.co.nz,
elecgor@esi.co.nz,
electjville@xtra.co.nz,
eric.roy@parliament.govt.nz,
genelle@johnkey.mp.net.nz,
george.hawkins@parliament.govt.nz,
greenmps.auckland@greens.org.nz,
greenmps.dunedin@greens.org.nz,
h.roy@ministers.govt.nz,
heather.henderson@parliament.govt.nz,
hekia.parata@parliament.govt.nz,
hone.harawira@parliament.govt.nz,
hunua.electorate@xtra.co.nz,
Iain.leesgalloway@parliament.govt.nz,
ikaroa.gis@xtra.co.nz,
ikaroa.hstgs@xtra.co.nz,
j.carter@ministers.govt.nz,
j.coleman@ministers.govt.nz,
j.collins@ministers.govt.nz,
jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz,
jackie.blue@parliament.govt.nz,
Jacqui.dean@parliament.govt.nz,
janette.granville@xtra.co.nz,
jen.toogood@parliament.govt.nz,
jim.anderton@parliament.govt.nz,
jo.goodhew@parliament.govt.nz,
john.boscawen@parliament.govt.nz,
k.wilkinson@ministers.govt.nz,
kanwaljit.singh.bakshi@parliament.govt.nz,
keith.locke@parliament.govt.nz,
Kelvin.davis@parliament.govt.nz,
kevin.hague@parliament.govt.nz,
kilbirnieeo@xtra.co.nz,
labourwest@xtra.co.nz,
lianne.dalziel@parliament.govt.nz,
lindsay.tisch@parliament.govt.nz,
loren.bolton@parliament.govt.nz,
louise.upston@parliament.govt.nz,
lynne.pillaymp@xtra.co.nz,
m.williamson@ministers.govt.nz,
mana.electorate@xtra.co.nz,
marlene.ditchfield@xtra.co.nz,
maryan.street@parliament.govt.nz,
melissa.lee@parliament.govt.nz,
metiria.turei@parliament.govt.nz,
michael.clatworthy@xtra.co.nz,
Michael.woodhouse@parliament.govt.nz,
moana.mackey@labour.org.nz,
mp.rodney.warkworth@xtra.co.nz,
murray.mccully@xtra.co.nz,
n.smith@ministers.govt.nz,
nick@nick4nelson.co.nz,
nanaia.mahuta@parliament.govt.nz,
napier.electorate@airnet.net.nz,
natalie.roberts@parliament.govt.nz,
nathan.guy@national.org.nz,
national.horowhenua@xtra.co.nz,
national.kapiti@xtra.co.nz,
nicky.wagner@parliament.govt.nz,
nikki.kaye@parliament.govt.nz,
northlandelectorate@xtra.co.nz,
office@grantrobertson.co.nz,
office@judithcollins.co.nz,
office@labournorth.org.nz,
p.dunne@ministers.govt.nz,
p.goff@parliament.govt.nz,
p.heatley@ministers.govt.nz,
p.wong@ministers.govt.nz,
pansy.wong@xtra.co.nz,
parekura.horomia@parliament.govt.nz,
paul.hutchison@parliament.govt.nz,
paul.quinn@parliament.govt.nz,
peseta.sam.lotuiiga@parliament.govt.nz,
pete.hodgson@parliament.govt.nz,
pete@petehodgson.co.nz,
petone.eo@clear.net.nz,
phil@goff.org.nz,
Pita.Sharples@parliament.govt.nz,
r.hide@ministers.govt.nz,
rae.waterhouse@xtra.co.nz,
rahui.katene@parliament.govt.nz,
rajen.prasad@parliament.govt.nz,
Raymond.huo@parliament.govt.nz,
rick.barker@parliament.govt.nz,
ritchie.wards@parliament.govt.nz,
rodney@epsom.org.nz,
roger.douglas@parliament.govt.nz,
ross.robertson@parliament.govt.nz,
russel.norman@parliament.govt.nz,
ruth.dyson@xtra.co.nz,
s.joyce@ministers.govt.nz,
s.power@ministers.govt.nz,
sandra.goudie@national.org.nz,
shane.ardern@parliament.govt.nz,
shane.jones@parliament.govt.nz,
shanejonesmp@xtra.co.nz,
simon.bridges@parliament.govt.nz,
simonpower.feilding@xtra.co.nz,
simonpower.marton@xtra.co.nz,
socialjustice@greens.org.nz,
steve.chadwick@parliament.govt.nz,
stuart.nash@parliament.govt.nz,
sue.kedgley@parliament.govt.nz,
sue.moroney@parliament.govt.nz,
t.ryall@ministers.govt.nz,
t.turia@ministers.govt.nz,
tainuielectorate@xtra.co.nz,
Tari.Turia@xtra.co.nz,
tau.henare@parliament.govt.nz,
tau.henaremp@xtra.co.nz,
terry.ututaonga@parliament.govt.nz,
teururoa.flavell@parliament.govt.nz,
tim.groser@parliament.govt.nz,
tim.macindoe@parliament.govt.nz,
todd.mcclay@parliament.govt.nz,
tolleygis@xtra.co.nz,
tolleywhk@xtra.co.nz,
trevor.mallard@parliament.govt.nz,
trish.wanden@parliament.govt.nz,
w.mapp@ministers.govt.nz,
waikatohub.mps@xtra.co.nz,
waimakariri@xtra.co.nz,
winnie.laban@parliament.govt.nz,
WOAoffice@xtra.co.nz,
Kennedy Graham ,
mbarlow8965@rogers.com,
anaidoo@canadians.org,
news@newstalkzb.co.nz,
news@radionz.co.nz,
news@radiolive.co.nz,
news@tvnz.co.nz,
news@nzpa.co.nz,
newsdesk@nzherald.co.nz,
news@95bfm.co.nz,
news@niufm.com,
MIGRANT NEWS ,
cosdesk@tv3.co.nz,
“Bernard.Orsman@nzherald.co.nz” ,
brian.rudman@nzherald.co.nz,
Brian Gaynor ,
am@kci.net.nz,
john.armstrong@nzherald.co.nz,
audrey.young@nzherald.co.nz,
Fran O’Sullivan ,
closeup@tvnz.co.nz,
campbelllive@tv3.co.nz,
selwyn@scoop.co.nz,
editor@uncensored.co.nz,
editor@tumeke.org,
editor@scoop.co.nz,
editor@waihekegulfnews.co.nz,
Ian Wishart ,
editorial@investigatemagazine.com,
Nicky Hager ,
bomber@woosh.co.nz,
Rosslyn Noonan ,
Sylvia Bell ,
michaelW@hrc.co.nz,
margaret.taylor@amnesty.org.nz,
messenger@truthout.org,
owenm@theaustralian.com.au,
P3research@lists.cupe.ca,
pilgereditor@gmail.com,
press.int@aljazeera.net,
scarpinelli@publicintegrity.org,
worldhaveyoursay@bbc.com

25 July 2010

URGENT ‘OPEN LETTER’ TO NZ PRIME MINISTER JOHN KEY:

WHY IS NZ NOT SUPPORTING THE DRAFT UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION: ‘THE HUMAN RIGHT TO WATER AND SANITATION’?

(To be voted on Wednesday 28 July)

Dear Prime Minister John Key,

As Media Spokesperson for the Water Pressure Group, a ‘judicially recognised Public Watchdog’, on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters, I am very disturbed to be sent the following email dated 24 July 2010, from Maude Barlow, (National Chairperson, Council of Canadians, former senior advisor to the United Nations on water issues).

“Penny I know New Zealand is supporting an “alternative” resolution being cooked up by the US, Canada and the UK to water down the original resolution and put it forward as a “consensus” resolution. that is because what they want to do will gut it so much no one will object! …”

(Maude Barlow has offered to make herself available for media interviews in New Zealand on this matter.)

mbarlow8965@rogers.com

I have tried to find out:

“What is the position of New Zealand on this proposed UN General Assembly resolution “The Human Right to Water and Sanitation”?

Who will be voting on this resolution – representing NZ?

Will the NZ representatives be supporting this draft resolution in its current form?

If not – WHY NOT?”

(On Friday afternoon, when I phoned the Minister of Foreign Affairs Private Secretary, and the Deputy Director of UNHR division, neither of them were even aware of the upcoming UN General Assembly vote on this matter!)

Following is the ‘Draft Resolution on the Human right to Water and Sanitation’:

“DRAFT RESOLUTION

The Human Right to Water and Sanitation

Item 48 of the General Assembly: Integrated and coordinated implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes of the major United Nations conferences and summits in the economic, social and related fields.

Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Central African Republic, Congo, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Fiji, Georgia, madagascar, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tanzania (United Republic of), Tuvalu, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Yemen.
The General Assembly

PP1 Recalling its resolutions 54/175 of 17 December 1999, The Right to Development, 55/196 of 20 December 2000 proclaiming 2003 as the International Year of Freshwater, 58/217 of 23 December 2003, proclaiming the International Decade for Action, “Water for Life” (2005–2015), 59/228 of 22 December 2004 and 61/192 of 20 December 2006, proclaiming 2008 as the International Year of Sanitation, 64/198 of 21 December 2009 regarding the Midterm comprehensive review of the implementation of the International Decade for Action, “Water for Life,” Agenda 21 of June 1992, the Habitat Agenda of 1996, the Mar del Plata Action Plan of 1977 adopted by the United Nations Water Conference, and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development of June 1992,

PP2 Recalling the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War,

PP3 Recalling also all previous resolutions of the Human Rights Council on “human rights and access to safe drinking water and sanitation,” inter alia, resolutions 7/22 of 28 March 2008 and 12/8 of 1 October 2009 related to the human right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation, General Comment 15 of the CESCR on “The Right to Water,” the “Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the scope and content of the relevant human rights obligations related to equitable access to safe drinking water and sanitation under international human rights instruments,” as well as the “Report of the independent expert on the issue of human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation,”

PP4 Deeply concerned that approximately 884 million people lack access to safe drinking water and that over 2.6 billion do not have access to basic sanitation, and alarmed that approximately 1.5 million children under 5 years of age die and 443 million school days are lost each year from water and sanitation related diseases,

PP5 Acknowledging the importance of equitable, safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as an integral component of the realization of human rights,

PP6 Reaffirming the responsibility of States for the promotion and protection of all human rights, that are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated, and must be treated globally, in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing and with the same emphasis,

PP7 Bearing in mind the commitments made by the international community to achieve fully the Millennium Development Goals, and stressing, in that context, the resolve of Heads of State and Government, as expressed in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, to halve, by 2015, the proportion of people unable to reach or afford safe drinking water, and to halve the proportion of people without access to basic sanitation, as agreed in the Johannesburg Plan of Action,

OP1 Declares the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of the right to life;

OP2 Calls upon states and international organizations to provide financial resources, capacity building and technology transfer, through international assistance and co-operation, in particular to developing countries, in order to scale up efforts to provide safe, clean, accessible and affordable water and sanitation for all;

OP3 Welcomes the decision by the Human Rights Council to request that the independent expert on the issue of human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation present an annual report to the General Assembly, and invites the independent expert, in consultation with all relevant United Nations agencies, funds, and programs, to include in her report to the General Assembly, at its sixty-sixth session, the principal challenges related to the realization of the human right to water and sanitation and their impact on achieving the Millennium Development Goals.”

________________________________________

Please be reminded of New Zealand’s stated position on ‘Human Rights’, as outlined on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade website:

http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Foreign-Relations/1-Global-Issues/index.php
“Human Rights
In selected areas of the multilateral agenda New Zealand plays a part as a good international citizen as an expression of our national values. The promotion and protection of human rights is one such area. ”

_______________________________________________________

Please thus confirm that NZ representatives at the UN General Assembly will be given clear instructions from the New Zealand Government to support, lobby and vote for the above-mentioned ‘Draft Resolution on the Human right to Water and Sanitation’, in its current form.

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

https://waterpressure.wordpress.com

Ph (09) 846 9825
021 211 4 127

Slick Operator: The BP I’ve Known Too Well – Greg Palast

http://www.truthout.org/slick-operator-the-bp-ive-known-too-well59178

THURSDAY 6 MAY 2010

Slick Operator: The BP I’ve Known Too Well

Wednesday 05 May 2010

by: Greg Palast, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis

I’ve seen this movie before. In 1989, I was a fraud investigator hired to dig into the cause of the Exxon Valdez disaster. Despite Exxon’s name on that boat, I found the party most to blame for the destruction was … British Petroleum (BP).

That’s important to know, because the way BP caused devastation in Alaska is exactly the way BP is now sliming the entire Gulf Coast.

Tankers run aground, wells blow out, pipes burst. It shouldn’t happen, but it does. And when it does, the name of the game is containment. Both in Alaska, when the Exxon Valdez grounded, and in the Gulf last week, when the Deepwater Horizon platform blew, it was British Petroleum that was charged with carrying out the Oil Spill Response Plans (OSRP), which the company itself drafted and filed with the government.

What’s so insane, when I look over that sickening slick moving toward the Delta, is that containing spilled oil is really quite simple and easy. And from my investigation, BP has figured out a very low-cost way to prepare for this task: BP lies. BP prevaricates, BP fabricates and BP obfuscates.

That’s because responding to a spill may be easy and simple, but not at all cheap. And BP is cheap. Deadly cheap.

To contain a spill, the main thing you need is a lot of rubber, long skirts of it called a “boom.” Quickly surround a spill, leak or burst, then pump it out into skimmers, or disperse it, sink it or burn it. Simple.

But there’s one thing about the rubber skirts: you’ve got to have lots of them at the ready, with crews on standby in helicopters and on containment barges ready to roll. They have to be in place round the clock, all the time, just like a fire department, even when all is operating A-O.K. Because rapid response is the key. In Alaska, that was BP’s job, as principal owner of the pipeline consortium Alyeska. It is, as well, BP’s job in the Gulf, as principal lessee of the deepwater oil concession.

Before the Exxon Valdez grounding, BP’s Alyeska group claimed it had these full-time, oil spill response crews. Alyeska had hired Alaskan natives, trained them to drop from helicopters into the freezing water and set booms in case of emergency. Alyeska also certified in writing that a containment barge with equipment was within five hours sailing of any point in the Prince William Sound. Alyeska also told the state and federal government it had plenty of boom and equipment cached on Bligh Island.

But it was all a lie. On that March night in 1989 when the Exxon Valdez hit Bligh Reef in the Prince William Sound, the BP group had, in fact, not a lick of boom there. And Alyeska had fired the natives who had manned the full-time response teams, replacing them with phantom crews, lists of untrained employees with no idea how to control a spill. And that containment barge at the ready was, in fact, laid up in a drydock in Cordova, locked under ice, 12 hours away.

As a result, the oil from the Exxon Valdez, which could have and should have been contained around the ship, spread out in a sludge tide that wrecked 1,200 miles of shoreline.

And here we go again. Valdez goes Cajun.

BP’s CEO Tony Hayward reportedly asked, “What the hell did we do to deserve this?”

It’s what you didn’t do, Mr. Hayward. Where was BP’s containment barge and response crew? Why was the containment boom laid so damn late, too late and too little? Why is it that the US Navy is hauling in 12 miles of rubber boom and fielding seven skimmers, instead of BP?

Last year, CEO Hayward boasted that, despite increased oil production in exotic deep waters, he had cut BP’s costs by an extra one billion dollars a year. Now we know how he did it.

As chance would have it, I was meeting last week with Louisiana lawyer Daniel Becnel Jr. when word came in of the platform explosion. Daniel represents oil workers on those platforms; now, he’ll represent their bereaved families. The Coast Guard called him. They had found the emergency evacuation capsule floating in the sea and were afraid to open it and disturb the cooked bodies.

I wonder if BP painted the capsule green, like they paint their gas stations.

Becnel, yesterday by phone from his office from the town of Reserve, Louisiana, said the spill response crews were told they weren’t needed because the company had already sealed the well. Like everything else from BP mouthpieces, it was a lie.

In the end, this is bigger than BP and its policy of cheaping out and skiving the rules. This is about the anti-regulatory mania, which has infected the American body politic. While the tea baggers are simply its extreme expression, US politicians of all stripes love to attack “the little bureaucrat with the fat rule book.” It began with Ronald Reagan and was promoted, most vociferously, by Bill Clinton and the head of Clinton’s deregulation committee, one Al Gore.

Americans want government off our backs … that is, until a folding crib crushes the skull of our baby, Toyota accelerators speed us to our death, banks blow our savings on gambling sprees and crude oil smothers the Mississippi.

Then, suddenly, it’s, “Where was hell was the government? Why didn’t the government do something to stop it?”

The answer is because government took you at your word they should get out of the way of business, that business could be trusted to police itself. It was only last month that BP, lobbying for new deepwater drilling, testified to Congress that additional equipment and inspection wasn’t needed.

You should meet some of these little bureaucrats with the fat rule books. Like Dan Lawn, the inspector from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, who warned and warned and warned, before the Exxon Valdez grounding, that BP and Alyeska were courting disaster in their arrogant disregard of the rule book. In 2006, I printed his latest warnings about BP’s culture of negligence. When the choice is between Lawn’s rule book and a bag of tea, Lawn’s my man.

This just in: Becnel tells me that one of the platform workers has informed him that the BP well was apparently deeper than the 18,000 feet depth reported. BP failed to communicate that additional depth to Halliburton crews, who, therefore, poured in too small a cement cap for the additional pressure caused by the extra depth. So, it blew.

Why didn’t Halliburton check? “Gross negligence on everyone’s part,” said Becnel. Negligence driven by penny-pinching, bottom-line squeezing. BP says its worker is lying. Someone’s lying here, man on the platform or the company that has practiced prevarication from Alaska to Louisiana.

SPEAKING RIGHTS CONFIRMED AT ARC MEETING – MONDAY 26 APRIL 2010 AT 4PM

Dear Penny,

The ARC would be pleased to receive your delegation on Monday 26 April at 4.00pm. Our standing orders around the timelimits etc for deputations are outlined on the attached letter. In brief, they request that any deputation be limited to ten minutes.

My colleague Blair Doherty will be the committee secretary for this meeting. Please let him know if you have any electronic materials for display. He can be reached on 366 2000 ext 8038.

Kind regards Lorna

Lorna Stewart

Team Leader – Democracy Services

Auckland Regional Council

Te Rauhitanga Taiao

Ph 366 2005

Deputation Letter.pdf Deputation Letter.pdf
66K View Download

SPEAKING RIGHTS GRANTED BY MAYOR OF PAPAKURA DISTRICT COUNCIL

23 April 2010

Mayor Penrose
Papakura District Council

OPEN LETTER

Dear Mayor Penrose,

Thank you for granting my request for speaking rights at the Papakura District Council meeting, Tuesday 27 April 2010 at 4pm.

Kind regards,

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

SPEAKING RIGHTS CONFIRMED AT FRANKLIN DISTRICT COUNCIL THURSDAY 29 APRIL 2010 AT 11 AM

From: Trish Wayper <Patricia_Wayper@franklin.govt.nz>
Date: Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 4:17 PM
Subject: RE: ‘Open Letter’ /Request for ‘Speaking Rights’ at the Franklin District Council meeting 29 April 2010 at 11am.
To: Penny Bright <waterpressure@gmail.com>

Good Afternoon Ms Bright   This email is to inform you that the Mayor has granted your request to address the Franklin District Council meeting to be held on Thursday 29 April 2010 commencing at 11.00 am for ten minutes as set out in Standing Orders.    Your presentation will be taken at the beginning of the meeting.   If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.   Regards Trish Wayper

---

From: Penny Bright [mailto:waterpressure@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 21 April 2010 11:45 a.m.
To: Trish Wayper; markball@xtra.co.nz
Cc: Brendan Crompton; Dan Lynch – Councillor Waiuku/Awhitu; Dennis Robertson – Councillor Southern; Des Morrison – Councillor Pukekohe; jenniehayman@xtra.co.nz; jm.morris@ihug.co.nz; Lionel Petersen – External Address; Magan Ranchhod – Councillor Pukekohe; murraykay@xtra.co.nz; Sue Jackson -Councillor Northern; crispin@farmside.co.nz; franklin.editor@wrcn.co.nz; edward.rooney@theaucklander.co.nz; Bernard.Orsman@nzherald.co.nz
Subject: ‘Open Letter’ /Request for ‘Speaking Rights’ at the Franklin District Council meeting 29 April 2010 at 11am.

21 April 2010

Mayor Mark Ball
Franklin District Council

OPEN LETTER/ REQUEST FOR ‘SPEAKING RIGHTS’ AT THE NEXT MEETING OF THE FRANKLIN DISTRICT COUNCIL TO BE HELD ON THURSDAY 29 APRIL, AT 11AM:

Dear Mayor Mark Ball,

I am requesting an opportunity to address the Franklin District Council on the following matters of ‘urgency’ and ‘public interest’ pertaining to the Auckland ‘Supercity’ – as follows:

1) Update on petitions that were before the Local Government and Environment Select Committee,regarding the Auckland ‘Supercity’, including 2 petitions supporting the public’s democratic right to a binding poll on the Auckland ‘Supercity reorganisation proposal’.
(Four of the five petitions have now been reported back to the House.)

2) The only petition which is now ‘live’ before the House is the following:

E) 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.”
I HAVE BEEN ASKED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ENVIRONMENT SELECT COMMITTEE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS PETITION BY 7 MAY 2010.

(If any Councillors /or the Franklin District Council  have any information/views that they would like included as ‘evidence’ – I will consider adding this as further  evidence to support this petition.)

3) Facts and evidence which  prove the  lack of ‘due diligence’ and ‘prudent stewardship’ over Auckland regional public resources – namely the total lack of any ‘cost-benefit analysis’ which supports the ‘cost-effectiveness’ of the Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) model, into which it is planned to put up to $28 billion of Auckland regional public assets and infrastructure.

a)This includes the spreading of the ‘user-pays’ model for wastewater, which will have  the effect of lowering rates for wealthier families, whilst increasing water services charges for poorer, particularly larger families who need to use more water, effectively violating the UN International Right to Water by disproportionately burdening poorer families for the cost of water services compared with wealthier families.

(The proposed ‘giant’ Metrowater model for the Auckland region, with Watercare taking over both the ‘retail’ as well as ‘wholesale’ function, would see families of 8 paying over $2000 per year (over $500 every 3 months) for water and wastewater services on top of property rates – based on Metrowater current charges.)

4) The now ‘open’ water privatisation agenda, which  started under Watercare, and now extends to the Auckland Transition Agency (ATA).

This includes the selection of Graham Wood, the former Managing Director of United Water South Australia, who is now Programme Manager, leading the ‘integration’ of Auckland regional water services.

ie: A ‘water privatiser’ is now in charge of ‘integrating’ our publicly-owned Auckland regional water and wastewater services.

(NB: South Australia United Water are now being taken to Court by the South Australian Government, for allegedly overcharging South Australia customers for corporate overhead costs arising from NZ United Water contracts.

A copy of the South Australia Water ‘Statement of Claim’ against United Water is attached FYI.

An allegedly  misleading and deceptive letter from Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC)
in allegedly misrepresenting United Water’s profits in 2001 is referred  to para in 43 (Pg 4)
and para 53 (Pg 9) in this ‘Statement of Claim’.

NB: Graham Wood was Managing Director of United Water in 2001.)

5) Suggested, and recommended  action that could  be taken by the Franklin District Council in support of citizens and ratepayers who are considering the taking of a stand which cannot be ignored:

– A ‘Rates Revolt’ to stop the Supercity, in order to save and safeguard our lawful democratic rights as citizens, our public assets and resources for our children, grandchildren and future generations.

SUGGESTED (DRAFT) RESOLUTION FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF FRANKLIN DISTRICT COUNCIL MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS:

“That elected representatives of Franklin District Council resolve
in support and defence of the underpinning principles:

a) That ‘the will of the people is the basis of the authority of government’, and there should be ‘no taxation without representation’;

b)That citizens have a lawful democratic right to a  binding poll (vote) on a ‘reorganisational proposal’ such as the Auckland ‘Supercity’;

c) That local government must be ‘open, transparent and democratically accountable’
to the citizens and ratepayers of those districts, cities and regions;

d) That ‘prudent stewardship’ and ‘fiscal responsibility’  must be exercised over the ownership, operation and management of public resources,’ thus models such as Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs)  whose ‘cost-effectiveness’ for the public majority has yet to be proven by a ‘cost-benefit analysis’, should not be used;

e) That the ownership, operation and management of essential public services – especially water services, which are vital for public health and sanitation,should remain under the direct democratic control of elected representatives, not  ‘commercialised’ under the CCO (Metrowater) model or privatised under the Public Private Partnership (PPP – (United Water Papakura) model.

f) That as the right to affordable, safe water is an UN International Human Right
which states:

“.s 27…Equity demands that poorer households should not be disproportionately burdened with water expenses as compared to richer households,”

[“UNITED NATIONS COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS

General Comment No. 15 (2002) The right to water (Articles 11 and 12 of the International Covenant on Economic,Social and Cultural Rights) 26 November 2002.]

– it is recognised that the spreading of ‘user-charges’ for wastewater services  will further violate that right, and potentially cause financial hardship particularly to larger, poorer families who need to use more water as a vital necessity for life;

that Franklin District Council  hereby resolves that there will be no initiating of ‘rate recovery’  proceedings under s 62 and/or
s63 of the Local Government Rating Act 2002, against any citizens and ratepayers who dispute and withold rates payments for any of the above-mentioned reasons.”

(More background information is available on:

https://waterpressure.wordpress.com

(Please be advised that I have been granted 15 minutes to address Waitakere City Council ‘Public Forum’ on Wednesday 28 April 2010 at 5pm on the above-mentioned matters.)

I look forward to confirmation of this opportunity to address the Franklin District Council.

Thanks very much.

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

How much control is Auckland City Council exerting over CCO (Ca$h Cow Organisation) Metrowater?

12 April 2010

Auckland City Council CEO
David Rankin

OPEN LETTER/OIA TO AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL CEO DAVID RANKIN:
PLEASE VERIFY THE ACCURACY OF METROWATER’S OIA RESPONSE:

Dear David,

Please provide, under the urgency provisions of the LGOIMA, (because this information is needed for the Minister of Local Government), the information which confirms, that the following response from Metrowater, accurately summarises the position of Auckland City Council, relating to:

“Metrowater’s compliance with policies outlined in their Statement of Intent’ regarding  ‘debt management'”

A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’, will suffice.

(Please note that I attempted to raise this matter, in a proper way, by addressing Auckland City Council on 25 March 2010.

However, Mayor John Banks, after (unlawfully) denying me speaking rights, had me (unlawfully) dragged out of the Auckland Town Hall by security guards.

I have received no reply from Auckland City Council on this VERY serious matter, which displays how little ‘Council control’ exists over this ‘Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) particularly in relation to Metrowater’s ‘debt management’ processes, as outlined in Metrowater’s Statement of Intent. )

____________________________________________________________

MY ‘OPEN LETTER’ /OIA REQUEST TO METROWATER’S ‘ACTING’ CEO
TIM HAMMOND:

I have received a response from the ‘Acting’ CEO of Metrowater, Tim Hammond, to my Open Letter/OIA (dated 23 March 2010) – which asked for confirmation of the following:

“Whether or not Auckland City Council have ensured  Metrowater’s compliance with policies outlined in your Statement of Intent’ regarding  ‘debt management’:

1) In the first instance, the unlawful persecution of the Iosefa family will cease forthwith. Metrowater has been instructed to immediately withdraw any proceedings from the High Court for any further ‘Writ of Sale’ or the like, over their family home at 89A Canal Rd Avondale.

Metrowater will fully reimburse Maria and Luapo Iosefa for any costs incurred as a result of Metrowater’s lawyer’s unlawful actions.

2) A full investigation will be carried out, INVOLVING DISCUSSIONS WITH MYSELF AND MEMBERS OF THE WATER PRESSURE GROUP AS DIRECTLY-AFFECTED PARTIES,  as part of  the ‘audit process’ into Metrowater’s debt management processes and actions, given the now proven highly unprofessional style of work of Metrowater’s (former?) lawyer, Michael Tolhurst, and current ‘Legal and Compliance Officer John Hilario; including, but not limited to;  proven discriminatory political bias against myself and fellow WPG members; failure to follow lawful due process in the serving of court documents; lies being told me in order to destroy my credibility (including a complaint against me – authorised by Metrowater’s CEO, to the NZ Law Society); the use of ‘standover’/’extortionist tactics’ to enforce payment of disputed accounts; Metrowater’s failure to follow its disputes process.

(EG: How many legal proceedings initiated in the Auckland District Court by Metrowater’s ‘law’ firm City Law, ended up as ‘Judgments by Default’ – because the Defendants didn’t file a ‘Statement of Defence’, or attend the hearing?

HOW MANY OF THESE CASES WERE AS A RESULT OF LAWFUL ‘DUE PROCESS’ NOT BEING FOLLOWED BY METROWATER’S LAWYERS, AS WAS THE NOW PROVEN  CASE WITH MARIA AND LUAPO IOSEFA?

3) In the interim, ALL current legal proceedings against WPG members will be withdrawn FORTHWITH.

__________________________________________________________

METROWATER’S REPLY:

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Tim Hammond <Tim.Hammond@metrowater.co.nz>
Date: Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 5:50 PM
Subject: RE: HAVE AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL HELD METROWATER ACCOUNTABLE TO YOUR STATEMENT OF INTENT REGARDING ‘DEBT MANAGEMENT’?
To: Penny Bright <waterpressure@gmail.com>

Penny,

Answers to your questions (note we have had to restate you questions in a simple form to make sure the simple answers provided, as per your request, were clear)

Your general point/question re the Council holding Metrowater to account versus its Statement of Intent.

Yes, Metrowater believes the Council holds Metrowater to account versus its Statement of Intent.

Your specific numbered points

1. Has the Council instructed Metrowater withdraw proceeding against the Iosefas and reimburse their costs?

No

1. Has the Council instructed Metrowater that there will be some form of external investigation into Metrowater’s debt management processes?

No

1. Has the Council instructed Metrowater to withdraw all proceeding against Water Pressure Group Members?

No

Regards

Tim Hammond
Acting Chief Executive

Tel: Email: Web:

+64 9 624 4700 tim.hammond@metrowater.co.nz www.metrowater.co.nz

________________________________________________________________

PLEASE PROVIDE THE INFORMATION WHICH CONFIRMS THAT THIS
ABOVE-MENTIONED OIA REPLY FROM METROWATER ACCURATELY  REFLECTS THE POSITION OF AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL:

Can you please provide a reply by 5pm Thursday 15 April 2010.

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

OPEN LETTER/OIA REQUEST TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NEW ZEALAND TREASURY – JOHN WHITEHEAD:RE: ‘COST-BENEFIT’ ANALYSIS OF THE CCO MODEL

9 April 2010

Secretary
NZ Treasury
John Whitehead

OPEN LETTER/OIA REQUEST TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NEW ZEALAND TREASURY –

JOHN WHITEHEAD:

RE: DID CABINET EVER ASK  THE NEW ZEALAND TREASURY FOR A ‘COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS’ OF THE COUNCIL CONTROLLED ORGANISATION (CCO) MODEL?

Dear John,

1) Can you please provide the information which confirms whether (or not), at ANY  time,  the NZ Cabinet requested the NZ Treasury to provide a ‘cost-benefit’ analysis of the Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) model,  in order to substantiate, on an evidential basis,  the ‘cost-effectiveness’ of this model for the majority of citizens and ratepayers.

(Given that it is the Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) model  into which potentially $28 billion of Auckland regional public assets are to be put).

2) If the NZ Cabinet did request a ‘cost-benefit’ analysis of the Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) model which substantiates, on an evidential basis,  the ‘cost-effectiveness’ of this model for the majority of citizens and ratepayers, can you please provide a copy thereof.

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