Viagra | Adderall | Viagra Online | Levitra | Free Viagra | Cheap Viagra BRIEF OF EVIDENCE OF MAURICE LEICESTER CHATFIELD
 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT  NP No 650/01
AT AUCKLAND
 

IN THE MATTER OF an election for the
Office of  Councillors for the Auckland City
Council held on the 13th October 2001
 

_____________________________________________________________________________
 
 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT  NP No 650/01
AT AUCKLAND
 

IN THE MATTER OF an election for the
Office of  Councillors for the Auckland City
Council held on the 13th October 2001
 

_____________________________________________________________________________

BRIEF OF EVIDENCE OF MAURICE LEICESTER CHATFIELD
IN RELATION TO PETITION FOR INQUIRY

                         Dated  2001
---------------
JOHN COLLINGE
Barrister and Solicitor
Ph 09 360 8951
Fax 09 360 8953
10 London Street,
St Mary's BAY
Auckland
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

IN THE MATTER OF an election for the
Office of Councillors for the Auckland City
Council held on the 13th October 2001

BRIEF OF EVIDENCE OF MAURICE LEICESTER CHATFIELD IN
RELATION TO PETITION FOR INQUIRY

I, MAURICE LEICESTER CHATFIELD, Chartered Accountant of 10 Turner
Street, Auckland City do solemnly and sincerely swear as follows

1  I have practised as an accountant and company director for approximately 40 years
in Auckland and New Zealand and am well familiar with commercial and corporate
activities in New Zealand.

2  I am the Secretary of and a member the Executive Committee of the political
party known as 'Auckland Citizens & Ratepayers Now' (ACRN). This was a Joint
Venture for the purposes of the 2001 election for the Auckland City Council between
Auckland Citizens & Ratepayers Inc and Auckland Now Inc. These two parties
independently contested the 1998 Auckland City Council Election.

3 Angus Ogilvie, Graeme Mulholland, David Hay, Noeline Raffills and Paul
Forlong all stood at the 2001election under the 'Auckland Citizens & Ratepayers
Now' affiliation.

4 I was involved in the settlement of the policy for the 2001 election which was
debated over a period of some six months or longer. When it was settled it was typed
up and made available to members of the public.  My office dispensed many copies of
this Manifesto to various persons and to the media.

5 A copy of the ACRN Election Manifesto for the 2001 election dealing with
Philosophy and Policies together with the Loyalty Statement is attached hereto and
marked ‘A.’

6 I am the person named in para 2 (e) of the Petition filed in this matter and I
authorised the publication of the handbill referred to therein. A copy of the handbill is
attached hereto and marked 'B’.

7 For convenience, I outline what the Manifesto says in relation to water and
wastewater.

1      Pipes and reticulation assets must be publicly owned,
2      The existing LATE  Metrowater should be retained
3      Water or wastewater charges must be kept as a separate charge and not
         added to rates.
4       In the long term (5 plus years) we look forward to a public-private
         operating partnership s structure that works so well in other
         countries/jurisdictions :such as Victoria, Australia and many communities
         in the USA).
5. There must he co-operation at the regional level to ensure adequate
          supply, quality and ongoing levels of service.'

8      Accordingly, the policy of ACRN was not to privatise the assets relating to water
and wastewater.  Privatising means selling the assets from the public sector to the
private sector and ACRN was clearly pledged not to do this

9      The Manifesto did not preclude and indeed foreshadowed that the assets might be
operated or managed privately, That arrangement goes by many names such
as 'contracting out' or 'management' or 'operation'. This is not privatisation of the
assets but merely provides permission to manage or operate the assets, on behalf of the
public body in question with ownership remaining in the public body.

10 'Privatisation' occurs when the ownership of public assets is transferred 'to private
sector owners or there is the transfer of the controlling or majority interest in the
                      ownership of such assets.

11      It would not be privatisation to sell a minority interest in public assets as control
would remain in the public sector. In this case, there is a sense in which part of the
interest in the assets might be said to be privatised, but this is not privatisation as it is
commonly understood.

12      It would not be privatisation to corporatise assets. In such case the assets are still
owned by the public through shares in a corporation called an SOE (State Owned
Enterprise) or LATE (Local Authority Trading Enterprise).

13      It would not be privatisation to contract with others to manage or operate the
assets where ownership was retained by the public body. Further, it would not be
privatisation for such assets to be operated or managed in partnership. This is
commonly called 'contracting out’.

14      Accordingly, where the handbill says 'we ... will never support privatisation of
water and sewage assets' that is a correct statement and conforms with the Manifesto.
It does not preclude other arrangements, such as those mentioned above, which fall
short of privatisation.

15       The Petition refers to an election for a three year term   An intention to look at
partnership, management or operating arrangement in five plus years is outside this
term is not something which impacts upon the election in question.

16      The Water Pressure Group to which the Petitioners belong is well known to
oppose the establishment of Metrowater water (ie corporatisation), and the separation of
water rates from rates. Those views are their prerogative but in the Petition they
appear to be confusing 'privatisation with 'corporatisation', management or
contracting out'.

17      Attached and marked 'C' is a media article in which Counsel for the Petitioners
outlines the reasons for bringing these proceedings, namely, to make politicians
honest.
 
 
 
 

Brief of evidence - The Water Pressure Group
Brief of evidence  - Maurice Chatfield
Brief of evidence -  David Hay
Brief of evidence -  Angus Ogilvie
Judgement from Judge FWM McElrea