Rogernomics



ROGERNOMIC$ WRECKED AUCKLAND! THE OLD AUCKLAND REGIONAL AUTHORITY (ARA), FROM 1963 - 1986, USED TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR: Bulk water supply Main sewerage Principal public transport The airport Centennial Memorial Park Milk distribution It built regional roads Established regional reserves Oversaw civil defence Improved regional planning IN THE 1970s THE ARA BECAME RESPONSIBLE FOR: Refuse disposal Catchment authority Under the Rogernomics reforms - where public assets were 'commercialised, corporatised then privatised' - delivery of public services was separated from regulatory functions. This happened to the ARA. In 1988 the ARA became the ARC. Public transport (bus services); forests; refuse disposal and water services were corporatised between 1989 and 1992. In 1992 the ARC was then effectively gutted. Under the Local Government Amendment Act 1992, regional councils were restricted to regulatory roles and the new ARC was only allowed to keep regional parks. All the other ARC assets were taken over by a special statutory body - the Auckland Regional Services Trust (ARST). WHAT THE ARA USED TO DO 'IN THE BAD OLD DAYS"! PUBLIC TRANSPORT: "Through the late 1960s and 1970s, the ARA bought up and amalgamated a range of struggling commercial public transport operators with the aim of delivering effective public transport, the Auckland Bus Company, Passenger Transport Co, Suburban Bus Co, and the Commercial Bus Company were integrated over this period. By 1990 the ARA operated the country's largest urban bus fleet, comprising 540 vehicles and servicing an area of 1300km2, travelling27 million km per year. Six bus depots and a central workshop were maintained. This function was corporatised into Transport Auckland Corporation on1 July 1991."* 1 [1 Auckland Regional Council Draft Submission to the Royal Commission on Regional Governance - Appendix 2: History of regional decision making in Auckland (pg 115)] In May 1997, former National Minister of Transport Jenny Shipley, ordered the ARST to sell Transport Auckland Corporation. Stagecoach Holdings (via 100% subsidiary New Zealand Bus) bought the shares. Auckland* bus services were now PRIVATISED. WATER SUPPLY: "Auckland City Council had been responsible for Auckland's bulk water supply service from the late 19th century. This bulk operation, including its network of supply dams, treatment facilities, distribution network and staff were passed to the ARA in 1964. From 1964, the ARA constructed a number of the regions dams. These dams account for 54% of the regions bulk water supply.2" [2 Auckland Regional Council Draft Submission to the Royal Commission on Regional Governance - Appendix 2: History of regional decision making in Auckland (pg 115)] WASTEWATER "The functions of the (Auckland Metropolitan Drainage) Board were transferred to the ARA in 1963. Through the 1960s and 1970s the ARA progressively expanded the network of bulk sewers and pumping stations such that by 1990 it provided treatment for 80% of the region's population with a load equivalent to1.2 million people. Together with the Water Supply function, these were corporatised on 1July 1993 as Watercare Services Ltd." 3 [3 Auckland Regional Council Draft Submission to the Royal Commission on Regional Governance - Appendix 2: History of regional decision making in Auckland (pg 116)] INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT "The new international airport at Mangere, opened in 1966, was owned 50/50 by the Crown and Auckland TAs (Territorial Authorities). The ARA managed the airport on behalf of the owners. The ARA took the lead in constructing the new international terminal which was opened in 1976. Responsibility for airport administration was relinquished in 1988 upon establishment of AIAL" 4 [4 Auckland Regional Council Draft Submission to the Royal Commission on Regional Governance - Appendix 2: History of regional decision making in Auckland (pg 116)] FORESTRY "During construction of the water supply dams in the Hunuas, over 2200ha of "scrub" land was transformed, with Government assisted forestry loans, into pine forest and managed by the ARA water supply department. Regional Forests was created in 1991 to manage the forests." 5 [5 Auckland Regional Council Draft Submission to the Royal Commission on Regional Governance - Appendix 2: History of regional decision making in Auckland ] REFUSE "Until 1976, most TAs managed their own refuse "tips". However, as land became scarce and technology improved, regional oversight became necessary and by Order in Council the ARA was given power to designate, operate and license all refuse disposal in the region. the ARA upgraded or constructed four landfills and two refuse transfer stations. By 1990 these were taking about 70% of Auckland's refuse or 370,000 tonnes per year. Northern Disposals Services Ltd was formed to manage this corporatised function from November 1991." 6 [6 Auckland Regional Council Draft Submission to the Royal Commission on Regional Governance - Appendix 2: History of regional decisionmaking in Auckland Pg 116] REGIONAL ROADS "In the late 1960s coordination between the many TAs for roading infrastructure was minimal. to overcome this, and address the need for improved regional arterial roading, the ARA became a regional roading authority in the early 1970s. It had the power to designate, acquire land, construct and operate regional roads. The Pakuranga Brige over the Tamaki River crossing and the Greenlane-Balmoral arterial road are the prime legacy of this era, but designations and land purchases were made for other future arterial roads, including the South Eastern Arterial (later built by the Auckland City Council) and extensions to Ti Rakau Drive. This function was transferred to the expanding TAs in 1992." 7 [7 Auckland Regional Council Draft Submission to the Royal Commission on Regional Governance - Appendix 2: History of regional decision making in Auckland Pg 117] REGIONAL PLANNING "By the late 1950s, a multi-agency committee, the Auckland Regional Planning Authority, was providing an oversight and coordination role for planning in the rapidly expanding region. A regional planning function was incorporated into the ARA when it was established in1963. By the 1970s specific transport planning functions and the development of a catchment authority into a regional water board gave the ARA three core areas of environmental policy. The ARA developed several regional planning schemes under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning At 1977, which for the first time incorporated key urban development concepts such as metropolitan urban boundaries and also addressed resource management issues such as volcanic sight lines, coastal management and heritage protection. These schemes became the models for what were eventually called Regional Policy Statements under the RMA." 8 [8 Auckland Regional Council Draft Submission to the Royal Commission on Regional Governance - Appendix 2: History of regional decision making in Auckland Pg 117] REGIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE COORDINATION During the 1970s and 1980s, to overcome a perceived and real lack of coordination between territorial and ad hoc authorities and relevant government departments in terms of infrastructure provision, the Auckland Public Expenditure Committee was formed. In theory each body submitted their proposed capital works for each year, and opportunities were taken to align their works in the same area (for example roading, telecommunications and power), as well as to identify any funding issues from the then government controlled funding agencies. Some works, such as the major upgrade of Manukau Sewerage Purification Works proposed for 1974, were postponed for a period due to funding shortages. This formal coordination ceased in 1989." 9 [8 Auckland Regional Council Draft Submission to the Royal Commission on Regional Governance - Appendix 2: History of regional decisionmaking in Auckland Pg 117] THIS MODEL WASN'T BROKEN! ROGERNOMIC$ REFORMS DESTROYED THE ARA! THIS 'INQUIRY' NEEDS TO STOP RIGHT NOW UNTIL A REAL FULL AND INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE ASKS AND ANSWERS THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: 1) WHERE ARE OUR RATES MONIES BEING SPENT NOW? 2) WHAT WAS THE BENEFIT TO THE PUBLIC OF THE LAST COUNCIL AMALGAMATIONS IN 1989? 3) HOW DOES CONTRACTING OUT OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING 'PUBLIC-PRIVATE- PARTNERSHIPS' BENEFIT THE PUBLIC MAJORITY? 4) THAT THERE IS AN INDEPENDENT COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS/FULL INQUIRY INTO THE 'METROWATER' COMMERCIALISED MODEL (CHARGING AND PRACTICES) FOR THE OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT OF AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL'S WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICES, TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT: a) Metrowater is 'more efficient'. b) User-charges are 'fairer'. c) 'User-charges' do in fact, encourage water conservation. ___________________________________ Please be advised that on 17 April 2008, I gave notice to the Auckland Regional Council (ARC), at their 'Extraordinary Meeting on RegionalGovernance' that I was disputing and refusing to pay ARC rates as well. My letter of dispute over ARC rates reads as follows: "This correspondence is formal notification that this rates invoice is in dispute. Please be advised that this dispute will continue, and I will refuse to pay Auckland Regional Council rates, in the first instance, until such time as the following steps are taken to ensure 'prudent stewardship of our resources', as required by the Local Government Act 2002. BACKGROUND: A. I believe that it is time to 'ROLL BACK ROGERNOMIC$' – not spread this 'commercialise, corporatise – PRIVATISE' model to what remains of our public property at local government level. This appears to be the clear business agenda behind Auckland Regional Governance changes. B. I believe that the 'ONE PLAN' for the Auckland Region, comes from business, by business for business and will effectively set up a 'bigger public trough for bigger private snouts'. 1. I object to there being no cost-benefit analysis which PROVES that the 'ROGERNOMIC$ commercialise, corporatise – PRIVATISE model for the ownership, operation and management of public services provided by local government represents better value for the public than when councils owned, operated and managed those services themselves 'in house'. 2. I object to subsidising multinational transport companies, when there is no evidence to support that this has proven to be a more 'efficient' use of our public money. " I advise that Auckland Regional Council does not hold any specific reports in regards to cost benefit of public subsidies to privately owned passenger transport companies." (Letter from Mike Lee 27 February 2008) 3. I object to the proposal to spread the 'Council Controlled Organisation' model for water services when there has there never been an independent cost-benefit analysis or full inquiry into the Metrowater 'user-pays' commercialised model for water services to establish whether the mantra that Metrowater would be more 'efficient'; that 'user-charges are fairer'; and that 'user-charges encourage conservation' has proven to be true - ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE. 4. I object to the ARC supporting 'one big Auckland water company', when it is clear that has been the corporate agenda for years, and will allow the privatization of Auckland water services through contracting out (Public-Private-Partnership) the operation and management to multinational water company, United Water, who already have privatized Papakura's water services.)" ______________________________________ Please be advised that I have launched my own 'People's Rates Inquiry' - the job that the 'Rates Inquiry' SHOULD have done - namely - to find out where EXACTLY our public rates monies are being spent. I sent an Official Information Act request to every Regional, City and District Council in New Zealand, asking the following questions: "OPEN LETTER / OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT (OIA) REQUEST Date:_____________________________ To CEO _________________________ City Council / District Council Dear _____________________, Under the Local Government Act 2002, (Section 14, subsection (1), is enshrined the statutory duty that Council conducts its business, "in an open, transparent and democratically accountable manner", AND that Council "should ensure prudent stewardship and the efficient and effective use of its resources in the interests of its district or region." Please then provide the following information: 1) For 2008 – 2009 financial year the $ amount budgeted to spend on Council staff salary and wages. 2) For 2008 – 2009 financial year the $ amount budgeted to spend on private sector providers of: a) Goods b) Services c) People: i) Temporary labour ii) External 'experts' iii) 'Specialist advisors' 3) The information which confirms which (if any) operations and management of Council services have been contracted out to the private sector. a) If so, for each service provided by Council - which companies have these contracts. b) What is the value of each of these contracts. c) For how long is the term of each of these contracts. d) Who decided which company would get these contracts. e) When were the decisions made as to which companies would get these contracts. 4) The information which confirms how the contracting out of Council services is authorised, and by whom. 5) The information which confirms that there are internal Council audit processes in place, which check for relationships between Council staff and contractors; and such checks are made. 6) The information which confirms that there are external 'third party' audit processes in place, which check for relationships between Council staff and contractors; and such checks are made. 7) The information which confirms that there has been an independent cost-benefit analysis of the last 'amalgamation' in 1989, to determine whether or not this has resulted in a 'more efficient' use of public monies, and that the public majority have benefited from this exercise, in THIS Council area. a) If, 'YES', a copy of this independent 'cost-benefit analysis. 8) The information which confirms that there HAS been an independent cost-benefit analysis on the 'contracting out' (if any) of these Council services, including 'PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS (PPPs), to determine whether or not this has resulted in a 'more efficient' use of public monies, and that the public majority have benefited from this model; as compared with the Council directly operating and managing these Council services themselves. a) If 'YES', a copy of this independent 'cost-benefit analysis.” So far I have had over thirty replies. NOT ONE reply has confirmed that there has been an independent cost-benefit analysis of the last 'amalgamation' in 1989, to determine whether or not this has resulted in a 'more efficient' use of public monies, and that the public majority have benefited from this exercise, in THAT Council area. NOT ONE reply has confirmed that there has ever been an independent cost-benefit analysis on the 'contracting out' (if any) of these Council services, including 'PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS (PPPs), to determine whether or not this has resulted in a 'more efficient' use of public monies, and that the public majority have benefited from this model; as compared with the Council directly operating and managing these Council services themselves. How bad is that? This proves to me that there are NO FACTS TO BACK THE MANTRA that public services provided by the private sector operate "...more efficiently" and provide "..a better service to the public". "Part or full privatisation brings a discipline, transparency and customer focus that is absent when a business is underpinned by taxpayer funding." This mythical mantra quoted above was repeated as recently in a New Zealand Herald Editorial on 16 April 2008 entitled "Asset sales call for tough talk", trying to encourage National Pary John Keys to stop 'tip-toeing around the issue' of asset sales. "He should be similarly bold about the real merits of asset sales." REALLY? I for one, would be absolutely fascinated to hear about the real merits of assets sales. How asset sales have benefitted the PUBLIC MAJORITY rather than a self-serving minority of bloated corporate 'nest-featherers' – that is. Reading the FACTS about WHO has benefitted from asset sales and WHERE exactly this massive flow of public money to the private sector is going - rather than hearing the whining drone of an unsubstantiated pro-big business mantra - yes - that will make fascinating reading. The FACTS are that the way Council Annual Plans and Annual Reports are written - masks and disguises a massive transfer of public funds to the private sector. The devil is in the detail. Council Annual Plans and Annual Reports do NOT state which companies have the contract to do what work, for what length of time, for what cost. A multitude of private contractors - all whose main objective is to make private profit for the shareholders who own them do not have as their primary and driving focus the betterment of the Auckland region (or the bit they're doing the work for) and the ratepaying public. It appears that although elected representatives swear an oath to uphold the law - particularly the Local Government Act 2002 and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987- to exercise 'prudent stewardship' of our resources - they don't actually know where exactly our money is going either. There are no internal or external audit processes in place at Auckland City which check for links between Council staff and contractors. HOW IS IT DECIDED WHO GETS THE CONTRACTS? WHO IS CHECKING THAT IT IS BEING DONE ETHICALLY AND PROPERLY? WHY ARE COUNCIL SERVICES BEING CONTRACTED OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE - IF THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A COMPREHENSIVE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS THAT THE 'CONTRACTING OUT' (PRIVATISATION) MODEL IS A MORE COST-EFFECTIVE USE OF PUBLIC MONIES COMPARED WITH COUNCILS PROVIDING THESE SERVICES 'IN-HOUSE'? Particularly in Auckland City, unelected beaurocrats run our City as if it were their own private corporation. I have now been arrested TWENTY times in defence of our lawful and statutory right to 'open, transparent and democratically accountable local government' - having been denied speaking rights after having lawfully applied; and for refusing to leave meetings when public matters have been put under 'confidential'. The role and power of the unelected beaurocrats is not being addressed. The 'powers of general competence' appear to have led to general blinding incompetence as far as 'prudent stewardship' of OUR resources is concerned. THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE: IF THE COUNCIL IS NOT USING OUR MONEY PROPERLY OR PRUDENTLY – I FOR ONE AM NOT GIVING THEM ANY. I WILL FINISH COLLATING REPLIES FROM COUNCILS ALL OVER NZ AND PRESENT THESE FACTS WHEN I GIVE MY VERBAL SUBMISSION. IT APPEARS THAT NO ONE ELSE HAS COLLECTED THIS INFORMATION. THIS IS UNIQUE, NZ-BASED RESEARCH WHICH HAS ASKED THE SIMPLE COMMON-SENSE QUESTIONS NO ONE ELSE HAS. WHY? IS IT BECAUSE THOSE COMMISSIONING THE RESEARCH AREN'T DOING IT ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC MAJORITY, WITH THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE PUBLIC MAJORITY IN MIND? IT'S TIME TO 'ROLL BACK ROGERNOMIC$'! TAKE OUR PUBLIC ASSETS BACK! DEMAND WE THE PUBLIC BENEFIT FROM OUR PUBLIC MONIES - NOT PRIVATE CONTRACTORS. ENOUGH! Signed: ......Penny Bright.................................................................. Organisation if any: ......Water Pressure Group - Media Spokesperson Judicially recognised Public Watchdog for Metrowater, water and Auckland Regional Governance matters..........................................................