Rail Roaded Legislation



Open Letter to all MP's 13 May 2009 OPEN LETTER TO ALL MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT: ATTORNEY-GENERAL: MINSTER of LOCAL GOVERNMENT: MINISTER for INTERNAL AFFAIRS: Dear Member of Parliament, New Zealand has just been subject to, for the first time, an United Nations review of our Human Rights 'track record' as it were, through the Universal Periodic Review. Please be reminded that our NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990, is based upon the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, which states: Article 21 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) 3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. " Were the United Nations UPR working party told that New Zealanders living in Auckland were about to be subject to a massive violation of our human/ democratic rights? That citizens of Auckland were about to have legislation railroaded through Parliament, which would effectively transfer ALL public assets (worth $28 billion), out of direct democratic control, by placing them under the corporate 'Council Controlled Organisation' (CCO) model? Where do YOU as an MP stand on the attempt to railroad through legislation on the Auckland 'SUPERCITY' proposal, which unlawfully tramples underfoot the basic democratic rights of Auckland citizens to a binding POLL of electors? Never mind 'nanny state'! This is 'nazi state'! Where is the report of the Attorney-General bringing to the attention of the House of Representatives any provision in this 'Auckland' Bill that appears to be inconsistent with any of the rights and freedoms in this Bill of Rights? Please be reminded of the statutory duties of the Attorney-General, as set out in the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990: "Section 3 [Application] This Bill of rights applies only to acts done (a) By the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of the government of New Zealand; or (b) By any person or body in the performance of any public function, power, or duty conferred or imposed on that person or body by or pursuant to law. Section 7 [Attorney-General's Report] Where any Bill is introduced into the House of Representatives, the Attorney-General shall, (a) In the case of a Government Bill, on the introduction of that Bill; or (b) In any other case, as soon as practicable after the introduction of the Bill, bring to the attention of the House of Representatives any provision in the Bill that appears to be inconsistent with any of the rights and freedoms in this Bill of Rights." Please be reminded of the rights of NZ citizens under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 Section 27 [Remedies] "(1) Every person has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the power to make a determination in respect of that person's right, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law. (2) Every person whose rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised bylaw have been affected by a determination of any tribunal or other public authority has the right to apply, in accordance with law, for judicial review of that determination. (3) Every person has the right to bring civil proceedings against, and to defend civil proceedings brought by, the Crown, and to have those proceedings heard, according to law, in the same way as civil proceedings between individuals." Please also be reminded that there is currently before the House Petition 2008/020 which deals with this matter: "Petition of Penelope Mary Bright and 62 others Requesting that the House does not implement any legislative changes proposing the ‘reorganisation’ of Auckland regional governance, until the lawful due process for so doing, as enshrined in s24 “Reorganisation Proposals’, and Schedule 3 (particularly s49 thereof - “Polls must be held”) of the Local Government Act 2002, is properly followed; and the mandatory poll of electors who will be affected by the proposed abolition of Auckland, Manukau, North Shore and Waitakere City Councils; and Papakura, Rodney and Franklin District Councils, with their proposed ‘reorganisation’ into one ‘Auckland Council’, is duly held. Petition number: 2008/20 Presented by: Dr Russel Norman Date presented: 12 May 2009 Referred to: Local Government and Environment Committee It is clear that the lawful due process as enshrined in the Local Government Act 2002, s24 'Reorganisation Proposal' , and Schedule 3 s 49 “Polls must be held”), has been completely, and unlawfully ignored. These are OUR towns and cities which are facing abolition. These are OUR public assets worth $28 billion, which are facing an effective corporate takeover through the corporate 'Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) model. Under this CCO model, $28 billion worth of OUR public assets will be removed from the direct democratic control of elected representatives. Who will run these CCOs are 'selected' - not elected Boards of Directors (appointed business people) over whom the public have no say. The public cannot attend meetings of CCOs. The public have NO SAY over the 'Statement of Intent' which governs the relationship between the 'Council' and the CCO. There is effectively NO democracy for the public under the CCO model under which $28 billion worth of OUR assets are to be placed. This means that current debates about 'democracy' are effectively meaningless. There will be nothing left for the public to 'have a say' over. Under the CCO model - the elected representatives no longer have direct control over these assets. Experience with the Metrowater CCO model is that there is little 'Council control' over the 'Council Controlled Organisation'. To make it worse - there has NEVER been any form of 'cost-benefit' analysis of ANY CCO, by ANY BODY! Do YOU as an MP support this fiscal irresponsibility - especially in these times of economic hardship? The Royal Commission has fundamentally failed according to its own terms of reference - to 'maximise cost-effective solutions' - when the corporate CCO model it has proposed for $28 billion worth of public assets has NEVER been subject to ANY form of 'cost-benefit' analysis! A 'whistle-blower' has exposed a secret agenda involving Watercare. (A full copy of this letter follows at the end of this) As a result of this 'whistle-blower letter' I make the following OIA request: OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT REQUEST: TO: The Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide TO: The Minister for Internal Affairs Richard Worth 1. Has a transition and/or amalgamation plan (by name or effect) for the Auckland Water Industry been prepared for the Department of Internal Affairs and/or the Commission for Auckland? 2. Could you please provide a copy of that plan and/or any correspondence (including emails and telephone records) related to it that has taken place between the company and/or the Department of Internal Affairs and/or the Commission for Auckland and/or the Minister for Local Government. This should include diary notes of meetings that took place between these parties at which the proposal and for Auckland governance was discussed in whole or in part. 3. When was that plan prepared? 4. Did the preparation of that plan include engaging with all stakeholders including the company's shareholders- in a transparent and collaborative manner as per Watercare's statement of intent? 5. Who was the report prepared by? 6. Was that plan prepared and distributed to government by officials of Watercare Services Limited, including that company's Corporate Relations Manager, David Hawkins. 7. Was the, board of Watercare Services made aware of the preparation of this report? 8. Were the shareholders of Watercare Services Limited - namely the councils of the Auckland region- asked to comment on and/or approve this plan. 9. How much time and money has Watercare Services Limited spent on preparation of an amalgamation/transition plan (by name or effect) for the Auckland water industry? 10. Under what authorisation was that plan prepared? 11. Has Watercare Services employed the services of IT company SAP? 12. What is the brief of work that will be carried out by SAP? 13. Does the brief of work to be undertaken by SAP include assessment of billing services technologies? 14. To what extent, if any, does the transition/amalgamation plan allow for a review of the directors and/or management of Watercare Services Limited, including making these positions contestable? 15. To what extent does the transition/amalgamation plan acknowledge that the current board of Watercare Services Limited has little or no customer services experience, especially given that Watercare Services currently has 6 customers but under the plan would have more than 350,000 customers? 16. Has Watercare Services ever employed (including by contract) anyone directly related (spouse, sibling, brother or sister in law) to the Minister of Internal Affairs. If so, when, for what purpose and was the appointment contestable? Please be reminded of the oath, as Members of Parliament that you swore to uphold: (Oath of allegiance) “I, [name], swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.” If you as an MP aren't going to follow the law - don't expect us to. WHEN INJUSTICE BECOMES LAW- RESISTANCE BECOMES DUTY! "Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law " - [Preamble Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948] SO! WHERE DO YOU STAND AS AN MP? ARE YOU GOING TO HELP TRAMPLE OVER AND VIOLATE THE DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS OF CITIZENS OF AUCKLAND TO HAVE BINDING POLL ON THE SUPERCITY PROPOSAL? YES or NO ? Members of the voting public would like to know. 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 1287 For information about the SUPERCITY that you won't get any where else www.stopthesupercity.org.nz WATERCARE ANONOMOUS ‘WHISTLEBLOWER’ LETTER! Emailed 27 April 2009 "Hi, I have been watching with great interest the progression to making Auckland a Super City, and there is one aspect of the government's plans that I think deserves a lot more attention than it is getting. Given your interest in Auckland matters, and your ability to get to the truth, I am going to share the following information with you on an anonymous basis in the hope that you might be able to bring this to the public's attention and save everyone a great deal of money and grief. Firstly though, I want you to know my interest in this. I am involved in the water industry and have been for many years. In my time in the 'industry in Auckland I have observed a steady "gold-plating" of water assets by Watercare Services Limited and a steady rise in prices for customers. This has occurred in an environment where the water industry, especially Watercare, is largely left to govern itself, because ownership is so fractured and governance is very light-handed. I had hoped that the government move to form a super city and amalgamate water assets under one company would lead to stronger governance and an opportunity for greater efficiency and thus a lowering in prices for customers - but as you will read, it appears that the opposite is happening as the government is being hoodwinked by a couple of people who are out to use public funding to support their own means and private-industry friends. So here's what all of this is about. As you might know, the government's proposal to form a Super City includes the following plan for the water industry: "One provider of water and wastewater services for the Auckland region, Auckland Council to be responsible for environmental management.". The government initially said its decision was that there would be "1 provider of water and wastewater services"; whereas the Commission for Auckland recommended that provider should be" Watercare as a CCO of the Auckland Council". It is worth noting that barely 24 hours after the government announced its decision - which expressly didn't mention Watercare as the provider – the Minister of Local Government sent out a media release which effectively reversed that position and said Watercare would be the provider. The reason for this reversal? Quite simply, there is a secret transition plan for the water industry in Auckland that has been written by Watercare officials and is beneficial to private-sector companies supported by that Minister. This plan will see more than 500 people currently employed in the water industry lose their jobs in favour of private sector contractors and service providers being employed by Watercare, and it will also see a $1 billion infrastructure project fast-tracked so that the government can create private-sector jobs at the expense of Auckland's water and wastewater customers. Interestingly, this project, called "Project Waitemata" will run right through Mt Albert, where the government is trying to break the Labour Government's stranglehold on the electorate formerly held by Prime Minister Helen Clark. The proposed cost of this project has ballooned to nearly $700 million on Watercare's books and within the industry it is now estimated it will cost at least $1 billion. It is a project to build a pipeline to transport Auckland's waste from near the central City to Mangere..... and wouldn't you know it, it could be build partially along the same route as the proposed State Highway 20 extension which the government is desperate to find funding for. ..... that is the same project involving the Auckland Regional Transport Authority that, wouldn't you know it, just happens to be chaired by Mark Ford, yes, the very same Mark Ford who is chair of Watercare Services. To fund Project Waitemata, Watercare is proposing to defer other big projects, including proposals to build new sources of water and rebuild parts of its network that need to be repaired or expanded. If it doesn't put off these projects it won't be able to defer price increases that have already been proposed and approved in Watercare Services Limited's annual funding plan. Watercare's funding plan includes proposed price increases of 6-13%)' over each of the next 10 years, which is somewhat at odds with the Minister of Local Government's suggestion that local government prices should rise no more than the rate of inflation. In fact, Watercare's proposed price rises are significantly above all the forecast price changes of water companies in Auckland. In effect the proposal is to put the Fox in charge of the Hen House. So who is the Fox? The transition (or amalgamation) plan has been written by Watercare Services Limited executives at the behest of its chief executive, Mark Ford. It is my understanding that Mr Ford has effectively spent more than $100,000 in having this plan prepared without the approval of his company's shareholders - which given that it is policy related must surely have been required, even though the cost of it might have been within his delegated authority for other spending. It is also my understanding that the bulk of the plan was prepared by Mr David Hawkins, who is the Corporate Relations Manager for Watercare Services Limited. Mr Hawkins is the former Mayor of Papukura who was responsible for pushing through the privatisation of the management contract for that district's water and wastewater services. He was employed by Mr Ford. So the upshot is that the Watercare-funded plan has been included covertly in papers being put to Cabinet to fast-track the creation of the Auckland super City. If approved, this part of the plan will not go through select committee. So if approved by Cabinet, this will mean that Watercare Services has funded and written a plan that will benefit executives of the company, its private sector contractors, and its supporters, without that plan having ever been contested or consulted upon. I understand the plan includes the following: • That Watercare Services Limited be charged with amalgamating water industry assets currently owned by local councils in Auckland. • That the existing board and executive of Watercare Services be retained. • That Watercare Services chief executive Mark Ford be appointed by the Auckland Council Establishment Board to effect the amalgamation • That the amalgamation include giving Watercare Services the authority to "restructure" existing water and wastewater authorities in Auckland, including authority to dispose of non-Watercare staff (who number around 500). . • That volumetric pricing be introduced for wastewater as detailed in the Watercare Services amalgamation plan- including block tariff arrangements proposed by Watercare. (This would effectively mean higher prices for about 75% of households in Auckland - though the plan expects this to be offset by cutbacks in programmes already in Watercare's annual plan). While I believe that amalgamation of the water industry in Auckland is a good thing, I find it remarkable that the plan to do so has effectively been written by the company that historically has delivered the highest prices in the region, has no customer services experience, has gold plated all of its infrastructure, and has the lousiest governance in the region. I think this story needs to be told before the people of Auckland have thrust upon them a water company that will have huge powers and no real checks or balances on it. In my opinion amalgamation should occur, but through the creation of a completely new entity with a new board of directors, an executive that goes through a new employment process and that therefore has a new culture without the baggage of excess and cronyism that Watercare Services brings with it. I suggest the following questions be asked under the Official Information Act of Watercare Services chief executive Mark Ford, and that these questions also be put to the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide, the Minister of Internal Affairs Richard Worth, and the chief executive of Internal Affairs Brendan Boyle. 1. Has a transition and/or amalgamation plan (by name or effect) for the Auckland Water Industry been prepared for the Department of Internal Affairs and/or the Commission for Auckland? 2. Could you please provide a copy of that plan and/or any correspondence (including emails and telephone records) related to it that has taken place between the company and/or the Department of Internal Affairs and/or the Commission for Auckland and/or the Minister for Local Government. This should include diary notes of meetings that took place between these parties at which the proposal and for Auckland governance was discussed in whole or in part. 3. When was that plan prepared? 4. Did the preparation of that plan include engaging with all stakeholders including the company's shareholders- in a transparent and collaborative manner as per Watercare's statement of intent? 5. Who was the report prepared by? 6. Was that plan prepared and distributed to government by officials of Watercare Services Limited, including that company's Corporate Relations Manager, David Hawkins. 7. Was the, board of Watercare Services made aware of the preparation of this report? 8. Were the shareholders of Watercare Services Limited - namely the councils of the Auckland region- asked to comment on and/or approve this plan. 9. How much time and money has Watercare Services Limited spent on preparation of an amalgamation/transition plan (by name or effect) for the Auckland water industry? 10. Under what authorisation was that plan prepared? 11. Has Watercare Services employed the services of IT company SAP? 12. What is the brief of work that will be carried out by SAP? 13. Does the brief of work to be undertaken by SAP include assessment of billing services technologies? 14. To what extent, if any, does the transition/amalgamation plan allow for a review of the directors and/or management of Watercare Services Limited, including making these positions contestable? 15. To what extent does the transition/amalgamation plan acknowledge that the current board of Watercare Services Limited has little or no customer services experience, especially given that Watercare Services currently has 6 customers but under the plan would have more than 350,000 customers? 16. Has Watercare Services ever employed (including by contract) anyone directly related (spouse, sibling, brother or sister in law) to the Minister of Internal Affairs. If so, when, for what purpose and was the appointment contestable?"