IN THE DISTRICT COURT
AT AUCKLAND       NP No 650/01
 
 

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 ANGUS STUART OGILVIE 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 ANGUS STUART OGILVIE IN RELATION TO PETITION FOR INQUIRY

I, ANGUS STUART OGILVIE, of 11 L, 14 Waterloo Quadrant, Auckland,
Telecommunications Manager, do solemnly and sincerely swear as follows

1      I have an MA(Hons) degree in political studies majoring in public sector
administration and am currently completing a Graduate Diploma in Business Administration through the Executive Programmes Department at
Auckland University.  I have since 1993 worked for Clear Communications and I am currently Regional Sales Manager responsible for a staff of 14 people.

2      I was a Council candidate for the Western Bays ward for the Auckland City
Council under the affiliation of the political party known as 'Auckland Citizens & Ratepayers Now' (ACRN) at the 2001 Election.

3      ACRN 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.

4      At the 1998 election for the City Council, I was Deputy Chairman of Auckland
Now and a spokesman for the organisation and continue to hold both roles.

5 I am the person named as Angus Ogilvie in para 2 (c) and (d) of the Petition.

6      Although I do not now have a copy of any statement to the media made by me dated Saturday 11 "' April 1998 referred to in Clause 2(c) of the Petition, the statement attributed to me that Auckland Now's policy on water and wastewater was to follow
the example of Papakura District Council which contracted a private company United
Water to manage its water and wastewater services is correct.

7      Attached hereto is an extract from the website of the Papakura District Council marked 'A' which explains the contract with United Water International Pty Ltd for
its water supply system and sewerage. It indicates that United Water 'operates' the
system and that the Council retains ownership.

8      Also attached and marked ‘B’ is a copy of an extract from the website of United
Water International Pty Ltd which further explains the relationship. It refers to United
Water managing, maintaining and operating' the services or providing water services
referred to therein.

9      On or about the 17th September 2001, I made a statement to Penny Bright of the
the Water Pressure Group the same as or similar to that alleged in para 2(d) of the
Petition, namely, that neither Auckland Now nor C & R has a privatisation agenda in
relation to those assets, ie water and wastewater. I do not now have a copy of the
email which I sent to that Group.

10     By stating in relation to the 2001 election that Auckland Now and Citizens &
Ratepayers did not have a privatisation agenda I meant that there was no agenda to
sell the assets or a majority interest therein into private ownership. That is the normal
meaning of the term in my experience. Privatisation in the New Zealand context means the sale of a controlling interest (typically 100%) in a State or Local Body owned asset to the private sector.

11   In so doing, I was outlining a policy which had been agreed by Auckland Citizens & Ratepayers Now that we would not sell the pipes and reticulation assets. I was earlier involved in the discussions as to policy as a member of its Executive Committee and feel confident that my understanding of it reflects ACRN policy.
Attached hereto and marked ‘C’ is a copy of the policy principles in relation to this subject .  Also attached and marked ‘D’ is a copy of the web site of ACRN which existed at the time of the 2001 election and continues to this date which outlines its policy at the
election. You will see that it is stressed there that in relation to water 'ACRN strongly believes that pipes and reticulation assets must be publicly owned. We are strongly
against privatisation of these assets' . It is clear from this that 'privatisation' refers to assets.

11      This ACRN policy would also not preclude an arrangement of the kind adopted by the Papakura District Council which was an agreement to operate the system for a given number of years in circumstances where the ownership of the assets was retained by Papakura District Council. 'Contracting out' is the term commonly applied to such arrangements and not ‘privatisation'. This is the kind of contract (although the terms may be different) which operates overseas, say in Victoria, Australia, in which assets are owned or controlled by the public sector.

14      I said nothing whatsoever which was false and believe that in the communications in question that I accurately stated the ACRN policy, I also believe that my use of the term privatisation, to mean the alienation of the assets from the public sector, accords with normal usage and with the public's perception of that term.

15      I deny absolutely the allegation that in answering an email tendered to me by or on behalf of the Petitioners I was in any way trying wrongfully to induce them to vote for me or for ACRN.

16      I was not the general spokesman for ACRN at the 2001 election but was a candidate in the Western Bays ward and was speaking as such.

17      Of the Petitioners, only four of them reside in the Western Bays ward, namely those who reside in Ponsonby, Grey Lynn and Freeman's Bay.

18     This ACRN policy refers to Victoria byway of example. I attach marked 'D' a copy from the website of the ballarat Council which states that Thames Water and United Water entered into a BOOT contract (Build, Own, Operate, Transfer) with the Council whereby they will build own operate and transfer the assets to the Council. This is a contractual device used to provide the assets to the Council in an operational state rather than simply the ownership of the assets in a greenfield state. Again, it means that the Council owns the assets and has not alienated them for ever. I would not regard this example as privatisation since privatisation involves the alienation of ownership and control over the assets
 
 

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