Click Here to download Petition No changes to Local Govt Act to make it easier to privatise water services until investigation of 7 United Water contracts.pdf

Penny’s latest letter to Every powerful person in NZ about water privatisation.

Subject: URGENT! OPEN LETTER
RE: WATER PRIVATISATION - TO ALL ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE AUCKLAND REGION!

8 November 2009

OPEN LETTER TO ALL ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE FOLLOWING COUNCILS AND COMMUNITY BOARDS IN THE AUCKLAND REGION:

The Auckland Regional Council
Auckland City Councils and Community Boards
Manukau City Council and Community Boards
Waitakere City Council and Community Boards
North Shore City Council and Community Boards
Papakura District Council
Rodney District Council
Franklin District Council


1) Do YOU support proposed changes to the Local Government Act to facilitate the privatisation of water services? YES or NO?

2) If 'YES' - how does YOUR support for proposed changes to the Local Government Act to facilitate the privatisation of water services
REPRESENT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE WHO ELECTED YOU?

3) If 'NO' - what action are YOU (and your colleagues) going to take to help stop these proposed changes to the Local Government Act to facilate the privatisation of water services?

Please be advised that your responses will be made available to the (voting) public.

Looking forward to your considered and urgent response.

Yours sincerely

Penny Bright
Media Spokesperson
Water Pressure Group
Judicially recognised 'Public Watchdog' on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters.

PH (09) 846 9825
021 211 4 127



8 November 2009

Dear CEO, Mayor and elected representatives,

OPEN LETTER/OFFICIAL INFORMATION REQUEST:

This is an URGENT matter!

BACKGROUND:

Cabinet are proposing legislative changes to the operation and management of water services in New Zealand, to make it easier to privatise them.

On 27 October 2009, twenty National Party Cabinet Ministers agreed to support the following changes to the Local Government Act 2002, which, if implemented, will establish the legislative framework to make it for easier for water services throughout New Zealand to be privatised:

The 'Cabinet Paper', presented by Rodney Hide on 28 October 2009, entitled:

"Decisions for better transparency, accountablility and financial management of local government",

"Flexibility in delvery of water services" (pg 6) - states:

"Issue

Local councils are elected to govern.
They are responsible to the law, and to their electors.
In deciding on any restrictions on councils' activities, central government needs to ensure that a balance between the public interest and the ability to act on behalf of their people is maintained.

The present law restricts councils from structuring their water services in a way that best meets ratepayers' and residents' needs and preferences. The current restrictions reduce councils' flexibility to choose effective and efficient delivery methods for water services.

The Government has decided on changes that will allow for more use of public-private partnerships in the construction and operation of water and wastewater plants. Build-own-operate-transfer (BOOT) schemes become more feasible, but ownership of assets would revert to councils at the end of any agreement, thus retaining ultimate public ownership. These changes do not affect the the other rules around asset ownership.

Decisions

The following legislative changes will be made:

• 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)."

________________________________________________

OIA QUESTIONS:


1) Please provide ALL/ANY information which confirms that the majority of citizens and ratepayers in YOUR Council area WERE ASKED /CONSULTED as to whether or not they wanted water privatisation as proposed in the above-mentioned Cabinet paper of 27 October 2009.

2) Please provide ALL/ANY information which confirms that the majority of citizens and ratepayers in YOUR Council area want water privatisation as proposed in the fabove-mentioned Cabinet paper of 27 October 2009.

3) Please provide ALL/ANY information held by YOUR Council which confirms that the private sector provision of water services, in any form, including Public Private Partnerships (PPPs), is more 'cost-effective' for the citizen and ratepaying majority, as opposed to Council 'in-house' provision.

4) Please provide ALL/ANY information held by YOUR Council which confirms that the private sector provision of water services, in any form, including Public Private Partnerships (PPPs), is more 'efficient' or 'effective' in providing water and wastewater as services essential to public health and sanitation, as opposed to Council 'in-house' provision.

5) Please provide ALL/ANY information held by YOUR Council which confirms that the private sector provision of water services, in any form, including Public Private Partnerships (PPPs), is more 'efficient' or 'effective' in implementing and guaranteeing the International Human Right to 'affordable, safe water', as opposed to Council 'in-house' provision.

6) Please provide ALL/ANY information which confirms that YOUR Council supports water privatisation as proposed in the above-mentioned Cabinet paper of 27 October 2009.

This information is requested under the 'urgency' provisions of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, as it is anticipated that these proposed legislative changes may be rushed through under 'urgency' when Parliament resumes on Tuesday 17 November 2009.

Can you please provide this information by 5pm Friday
13 November 2009.
__________________________________________________________

As a judicially recognised 'Public Watchdog' on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters - I have requested this information under 'urgency' in order to establish the following:

WHO WANTS THIS WATER PRIVATISATION?

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT THE MAJORITYOF NEW ZEALAND CITIZENS AND RATEPAYERS WANT WATER PRIVATISATION?

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT THE COMMERCIALISATION AND PRIVATISATION OF WATER SERVICES BOTH IN NEW ZEALAND AND INTERNATIONALLY HAS BEEN 'COST-EFFECTIVE' AND FINANCIALLY BENEFITTED THE PUBLIC MAJORITY AS OPPOSED TO THOSE WHO OWN THE PRIVATE WATER CONTRACTING COMPANIES?

In order to assist - I would like to draw the following matters to your attention:

A) IS YOUR COUNCIL AWARE THAT THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY 'COST-BENEFIT' ANALYSIS OF THE 'COMMERCIALISED' COUNCIL CONTROLLED ORGANISATION (CCO) MODEL FOR WATER SERVICES, AND THIS MATTER IS CURRENTLY BEFORE THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ENVIRONMENT SELECT COMMITTEE AS AN 'ITME OF BUSINESS'?

"Petition of Penelope Mary Bright
respectfully requests that the House of Representatives note that 120 people have signed a petition Requesting that there be no legislative change to enact recommendation 21A of the Report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance that: "All Auckland Council's major commercial trading and infrastructure activities should be undertaken through CCOs" until an independent cost-benefit analysis confirms the cost-effectiveness of the CCO model (particularly for water services) for the majority of citizens and ratepayers.
Petition number: 2008/18
Presented by: Sue Bradford
Date presented: 5 May 2009
Referred to: Local Government and Environment Committee



B) ARE YOU AWARE 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 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).'

These seven United Water New Zealand contracts being:

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


C) WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT twenty National Government Cabinet Ministers, 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?

D) HOW IS IT EXERCISING PRUDENT STEWARDSHIP OF RATEPAYER RESOURCES TO FACILITATE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THIS PRIVATISED WATER MODEL - WHICH IN THE CASE OF UNITED WATER, IS ALLEGEDLY BASED ON A 'RORT AND A FRAUD'?

(A copy of the South Australia Water 'Statement of Claim', which has been produced and is being prosecuted by Crown Solicitors on behalf of the South Australian Government, is included in this email).

E) The role of Price Waterhouse Coopers, in helping to perpetrate this alleged fraud and deception, is outlined in this above-mentioned 'Statement of Claim'.

Given the role of current and former Price Waterhouse Coopers employees/partners in the promotion, advocacy and implementation of the Auckland $UPERCITY, (particularly the 'integration' of Auckland regional water services, this, in my considered opinion, is a matter of real concern.

This information is already in the 'public domain'.
http://www.theaucklander.co.nz/opinion/news/opinion-troubled-waters/3906073/

F) FYI - the following petition is attached to this email.
The wording has been checked by the appropriate Parliamentary staff. It is my intention to have this petition presented on Tuesday 17 November 2009, so I will need signed copies back by Friday 13 November 2009.
My mailing address is on the bottom of the attached petition, which:

"Respectfully requests that the House of Representatives does 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".

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


6 November 2009

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:

Please note that this is an individual OIA request to EACH of you as a National Party Cabinet Minister.

1. Hon John Key
Prime Minister
Minister of Tourism

2. Hon Bill English
Deputy Prime Minister
Minister of Finance
Minister for Infrastructure

3. Hon Gerry Brownlee
Minister for Economic Development
Minister of Energy and Resources

4.Hon Simon Power
Minister of Justice
Minister for State Owned Enterprises
Minister of Commerce

5. Hon Tony Ryall
Minister of Health
Minister of State Services

6. Hon Dr Nick Smith
Minister for the Environment
Minister for Climate Change Issues
Minister for ACC

7. Hon Judith Collins
Minister of Police
Minister of Corrections
Minister of Veterans' Affairs

8. Hon Anne Tolley
Minister of Education
Minister for Tertiary Education

9. Hon Christopher Finlayson
Attorney-General
Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations
Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage

10. Hon David Carter
Minister of Agriculture
Minister for Biosecurity
Minister of Forestry

11. Hon Murray McCully
Minister of Foreign Afairs
Minister for Sport and Recreation

12. Hon Tim Groser
Minister of Trade
Minister of Conservation

13. Hon Dr Wayne Mapp
Minister of Defence
Minister of Research, Science and Technology

14. Hon Steven Joyce
Minister of Transport
Minister for Communications and Information Technology

15. Hon Georgina te Heuheu
Minister for Courts
Minister of Pacific Island Affairs
Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control

16. Hon Paula Bennett
Minister for Social Development and Employment
Minister of Youth Affairs

17. Hon Phil Heatley
Minister of Fisheries
Minister of Housing

18. Hon Pansy Wong
Minister for Ethnic Affairs
Minister of Women's Affairs

19. Hon Dr Johnathon Coleman
Minister of Immigration
Minister of Broadcasting

20. Hon Kate Wilkinson
Minister of Labour
Minister for Food Safety

BACKGROUND:

On 27 October 2009, you twenty above-named National Party Cabinet Ministers agreed to support the following changes to the Local Government Act 2002, which, if implemented, will establish the legislative framework to make it for easier for water services throughout New Zealand to be privatised:

The 'Cabinet Paper', presented by Rodney Hide on 28 October 2009, entitled:

"Decisions for better transparency, accountablility and financial management of local government",

"Flexibility in delvery of water services" (pg 6) - states:

"Issue

Local councils are elected to govern.
They are responsible to the law, and to their electors.
In deciding on any restrictions on councils' activities, central government needs to ensure that a balance between the public interest and the ability to act on behalf of their people is maintained.

The present law restricts councils from structuring their water services in a way that best meets ratepayers' and residents' needs and preferences. The current restrictions reduce councils' flexibility to choose effective and efficient delivery methods for water services.

The Government has decided on changes that will allow for more use of public-private partnerships in the construction and operation of water and wastewater plants. Build-own-operate-transfer (BOOT) schemes become more feasible, but ownership of assets would revert to councils at the end of any agreement, thus retaining ultimate public ownership. These changes do not affect the the other rules around asset ownership.

Decisions

The following legislative changes will be made:

• 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)."