Back

Water Pressure Group NetNews

MEDIA STATEMENT 25 JULY 1999

 

AUCKLAND MAYOR CONTINUES TO IGNORE THE PEOPLE

The Water Pressure Group will hold a picket outside the office of the
Auckland Mayor on Monday 26 July, protesting the lack of democracy by the
Mayor and majority of councillors. The demand for her resignation
follows the farcical "genuine consultation" promise from the mayor, when
the wishes of many thousands of Auckland citizens to abolish the
commercialised water service,  Metrowater Ltd were ignored.

Over the past two weeks the Water Pressure Group has been calling for a
poll of Aucklanders to give the Council a clear indication of whether or
not a majority want an end to commercialised water.

The Water Pressure Group media spokespersons Penny Bright and Jim Gladwin
said today:
"The Council has already been given the message but most councillors are
ignoring the call for abolition of Metrowater.  While we have no confidence
that Mayor and the majority of councillors will represent the majority of
citizens, we are very confident that a poll asking whether or not the
company should be dissolved, and water services be returned to council
control and operation, would result in a resounding YES from the public.
The Water Pressure Group public meeting of 18 July endorsed the folowing
wording for a poll:
 "ARE YOU FOR OR AGAINST THE FOLLOWING DEMAND?
 "We demand that Metrowater be abolished and that water services be
reintegrated back     into the Auckland City
Council as a non-profit Stand Alone Business Unit (S.A.B.U.).
 We demand that wastewater user-charges and systems changes be
abolished - waste    water charges be paid from
the rating base - and the amount going into wastewater be
  indicated on rates bills to ensure accountable management
of our resources."        FOR/AGAINST

The Council should accept the result of this poll as binding"."

Meanwhile, the past week has seen Mayor, Chris Fletcher lash out at the
Water Pressure Group, in claiming:

* that the Water Pressure Group is "playing with politics"
* the Water Pressure Group "can't just click their fingers and get
its own way..."
* "the council is responding to concerns in the annual plan about
user pays ... its got to be a little more  sophisticated than just 'Dump
Metrowater'."
* "I can promise this - if we dump Metrowater it will push rates up."
* Mrs Fletcher says the LATE model [commercialised service] managed
by a board of directors is the most efficient and effective way to keep
costs down, but is not equipped to deal with social issues.
 (all quotes from Central Leader 23 July 1999).

 Penny Bright and Jim Gladwin responded today:

* The Mayor of Auckland is sadly mistaken if she thinks that the
Water Pressure Group is "playing". In spite of a majority of Councillors
being elected last October on promises to abolish Metrowater, and in spite
   of the Mayor's own promise of "genuine
consultation" for the Annual Plan consultation procedure and her
 latest phoney "debate", Metrowater still exists. The Mayor is
apparently determined that Metrowater will   survive at all
costs. Perhaps what is really fazing the Mayor, is that unlike many
politicians, the word of the                   Water Pressure Group is not
to be taken lightly.

* Christine Fletcher complains that consultation is a two-way thing.
If that is the case, then why has the Mayor consistently failed to reply to
the letters sent her from the Water Pressure Group? (Copies follow).

* The NZ Business Roundtable and the Chamber of Commerce  wanted
Metrowater, and they got it. It is those same groups who want Metrowater to
survive and that is what is planned. Apparently the Mayor's
 ears are very well attuned when they "click their fingers" but when
it comes to the people's demands her     ears might just as well be
painted on.

* The Mayor on 5 July acknowledged that Metrowater was hastily set up
in 1997, and launched a "debate that Aucklanders must have" to decide
matters that "should have been resolved before Metrowater was established
in 1997". That debate has seen a closing date for written input of Monday
19 July - three    days before the draft tariff became
available to the council. Our submission went in but there has been no
 acknowledgment of its existence. The new tariff will not satisfy
the popular demand to Dump Metrowater.

* The Mayor claims the issue will be decided in Council next
Thursday. To top it all off, there will be no  public forum at the council
meeting so the Water Pressure Group has once again been declined speaking
rights. As in the past, the Water Pressure Group will have a presence and
we shall not be silenced.

* The revised tariff will see an increase in user charges. This means
that larger low income  families, all high water users, schools, rest homes
and many small business will be paying for the city's water infrastructure.
On the other hand, should Metrowater be abolished, the rate increase
threatened by the Mayor would  still result in most Water Pressure Group
members being hundreds of dollars better off every year.

* The Mayor's question "how should Aucklanders pay for wastewater -
what is the fairest way" has been repeatedly answered by the people of
Auckland "by rates on the basis of ability to pay - as was the case
  prior to Metrowater". The Water Pressure Group asks, "Why
does the Mayor have so much difficulty in
 understanding that concept? That is what the people want - an end
to commercialised water services.

* With regard to the Mayor's judgment on Metrowater being the most
efficient and effective way to keep costs down but not being equipped to
deal with social issues, then why are so many Auckland citizens
outraged at how much more water/wastewater services now cost?

 Commercialised water services cause the "social issues", because
they put the costs particularly on those who can least afford to pay for
them, while lightening the costs of those who could most afford to pay.
When were  "social issues" raised, prior to Metrowater - when the service
was funded from rates on the    basis of  ability to pay?
Commercialised water causes social inequity.
Abolish Metrowater Ltd, and abolish the root cause of unaffordable water
bills, thus social inequity.

* If Metrowater is efficient and effective then why are is the
company being prosecuted over the deaths of  three  workmen on 6
February - New Zealand's worst industrial accident for the past twenty
years?

* In spite of 506 people having had their water disconnected in the
past year the Water Pressure Group  continues to build the wastewater bills
boycott and holds weekly organisational meetings at the Fickling Centre in
Mt Roskill. We call on thousands more Auckland citizens to join the
wastewater boycott, as
direct action and civil disobedience remains the most effective method of
getting our elected
"representatives" to carry out the wishes of the majority.
       ends.

(See submission and letter copies following:)
_____________________________________________
19.July 1999,
TARIFF REVIEW - METROWATER
Submission from the Water Pressure Group

The protests and boycotts of the past year have brought the Mayor to a
point where she at last understands the "misery and unfairness" that
accompanies the existence of Metrowater Limited.

Mrs Fletcher calls her "debate", which nobody has been invited to take part
in, a "matter [which] should have been resolved before Metrowater was
established in 1997".  Where was Mrs Fletcher in 1997? Was she not aware of
the intensive debate within Council and throughout the community? Was she
not informed that there was a record number of submissions received that
year, we are told, and that the water LATE dominated the draft annual plan
public consultation procedure? Was she not told that of close to 3000
submissions, the vast majority were opposed to commercialisation of the
city's water services?

Had Christine Fletcher taken the time in 1997, she would have heard and
seen how people were opposed in principle to what has since transpired. It
was in principle, and dealt with principles, because the name Metrowater
hadn't been coined, and no tariff had seen the light of day. But that
principled opposition to commercialised water has been proven correct by
the intervening two years.

Has Christine Fletcher been informed of the 21,000+ pro forma submissions
calling for the abolition of Metrowater, that were presented for the 1998
draft annual plan? Does she remember the Council poll of 1998 which saw a
majority of people voting against Metrowater? Is she still overlooking the
14,000+ submissions (with well over an extra 1000 late ones) received this
year?

Who knows? But the Mayor in her wisdom still seeks to make a "fair" system
out of what has already been sold as "fair" for the passed two years.
Metrowater has passed its use by date!

These are some of the points raised by the Water Pressure group. They are
popularly supported by many thousands of Auckland citizens, and they are
based on political grounds that cannot be answered by a piecemeal attempt
at window dressing by a Mayor and others - apparently determined to defend
the existence of Metrowater Limited.

* Prior to July 1997, wastewater was funded from general rates, based
on the ability to pay. Since the inception of Auckland City in 1871, and no
doubt before, this had been the case. There was no wide
 spread disenchantment with the way revenues were raised. The NZ
Business Roundtable, the Chamber    of Commerce and the
Building Owners Management Association have been the champions of the
"fairness" we have seen in the past twenty-four months.

* On the other hand, there has never before been such an organised
objection  to the Council, through non-payment of a pricing element by
ordinary ratepayers, as the campaign led by the Water Pressure group.

* The contemporary push within local bodies which sees elected
representatives actually organising to "divest" the assets away from public
control and ultimate ownership (and therefore beyond democratic reach) is a
pattern of the past fifteen years' of central governments, which is now
thoroughly rejected by the people of Auckland City.

* If representatives cannot carry out their prime duty, which surely
is to maintain and defend the public interests and assets, then they should
resign now, before they are driven from office.

* If the most basic municipal services cannot be organised by elected
representatives, then those people should resign and new elections be held
to permit the emergence of more appropriate leadership.

At a public meeting on Sunday 18 July, the following motion was passed
unanimously. We challenge the Council to put this issue to a poll of the
people, before you proceed with your "once and for all .... final"
determinations:

MOTION 3: "Since the Auckland City Council is not only failing to act
on the consistent demand by     Auckland citizens
for the abolition of Metrowater Ltd as expressed again in the
    15,000-plus written submissions of June
1999, but is proposing "full and final decisions"
  on July 29 not asked for by its citizens but meant to
ensure Metrowater Ltd's
 survival,  that is: restructured Metrowater charges or Council
collection of Metrowater     wastewater charges;
that this public meeting has no confidence in the Council's ability
  to carry out the democratic demands of its citizens and
therefore demands that       Auckland
City Council holds a poll or referendum under S121 of the Local Elections
     & Polls Act 1976-89. The wording of
the poll to read:
 "ARE YOU FOR OR AGAINST THE FOLLOWING DEMAND?
 "We demand that Metrowater be abolished and that water services be
reintegrated back
 into the Auckland City Council as a non-profit Stand Alone Business
Unit (S.A.B.U.).
 We demand that wastewater user-charges and systems changes be
abolished - waste      water
charges be paid from the rating base - and the amount going into wastewater
be     indicated on rates bills to ensure
accountable management of our resources."
  FOR/AGAINST  The Council should accept the result of this
poll as binding"."

The Water Pressure Group is a non-party political organisation. Is has the
single goal of working for the abolition of Metrowater Limited. The
decision in 1997 was an anomaly which saw a step taken which is beyond the
tolerance of ordinary folk.

The current Council under the Mayoralty of Christine Fletcher can see fit
to redress that situation by tackling the issue at the cause, and voting to
dis-establish Metrowater Limited - or it can see the Council desperately
try to defend an ongoing situation of unfairness.

Should the latter be the case, then the Water Pressure Group will continue
in its actions.

"User pays", UAGC, and other such "levelling down" mechanisms are not
acceptable to us, and we will not be satisfied with partial remedies.

Penny Bright       Jim Gladwin
Spokesperson       Spokesperson
_____________________________________________
some letters not responded to by the Mayor:

The Mayor & City Councillors
Auckland City Council
9.July 1999

Dear Mayor & Councillors,       HIGH COURT JUDGMENT

Enclosed are documents which we feel must be considered prior to the
Council meeting of 29 July.

1)   A  copy of    "The Oral Judgement of Judge Williams on 24 June 1999,
 Between Metrowater Ltd and The Disputes Tribunal and J.N. Gladwin."

2)   A copy of a  Metrowater letter to a customer who advised that they
would be installing a tank for water supply.

The "legal" framework under which commercialised Metrowater Ltd is
operating in Auckland is effectively in dispute,  and awaiting
clarification in the High Court.    Briefly,  in the words of Judge
Williams:
"Put generally, as the court understands it, Metrowater's claim is that it
has a contractual
relationship with its consumers."    ("Oral Judgement"  - Pg 2)
"If there is a contract,  there is clearly room for debate as to its
terms."  (Pg  4)
"All in all, the terms of the relationship between Metrowater and its
customers is by no means clearcut and obviously requires determination as
soon as is convenient." (Pg 5)

Commercialised  Metrowater's method of charging for wastewater is
intrinsically linked to issues of social equity, and their "legal" right to
do so is an inseparable part  of this equation.
Realistically,  how can the Auckland City Council expect to resolve, for
once and for all, the question, "how should Aucklanders pay for their
wastewater? what is the fairest way?" on 29 July,  with any option which
keeps Metrowater in existence, while there are major outstanding issues
involving Metrowater, to be resolved by the High Court?
The solution is obvious. Listen to those 15,000 plus citizens who
participated in the public submission process of this 1999 Annual Plan,
and carry out the following:

* Abolish Metrowater and reintegrate water services back into the
Auckland City Council as a non-profit  Stand Alone Business Unit
(S.A.B.U.).
* Abolish wastewater user-charges and systems charges - pay for
wastewater charges from the rating base - and indicate on rates bills the
amount going into wastewater  to ensure accountable management of ourr
resources.

If all those Councillors who were elected to abolish or scrap Metrowater,
carried out their promises on 29 July, and voted accordingly,  then the
issue of Metrowater would be resolved.
As long as commercialised Metrowater Ltd, remains in existence, so will its
opposition.

Yours faithfully,  etc
________________________________________
The Mayor & City Councillors
Auckland City Council
9.July 1999

Dear Mayor & Councillors,       SOLIDARITY ACTION - 11 JULY 1999

We wrote on 17 June seeking a moratorium on Metrowater Ltd's actions in
restricting and disconnecting the water supply of people who are disputing
their wastewater accounts, and refer you to that letter.  Although we
requested "an urgent response" we have had no reply.

Given the current situation where the Mayor is attempting to "resolve" the
issue as outlined in her statement in City Scene 5 July, while Metrowater
Ltd continue to disrupt the water supply
of various customers in the intervening period until a new tariff is
examined, we have met as a group on 7 July, and made certain unanimous
decisions. These, we convey to you now:

* We reject the Mayor's efforts to effect change that accommodates
Metrowater Ltd.    While we will thoroughly address
Mrs Fletcher's statement in due course, we remind
 Council that public submissions overwhelmingly call for the company
to be abolished.    Auckland people are determined to
have non-commercialised public services.

* The Water Pressure Group is actively working for the resignations
of three councillors    who have broken their election
promises with regards to Metrowater Ltd.  As well we
 want the Mayor's resignation for failing to fulfil "genuine
consultation" in May/June 1999.

* We remain adamant that we will not tolerate Metrowater Ltd
disconnecting water which    has been paid for by people
in dispute with that company.  To that end, we are organising   a
public event when a roadway will be excavated and water reconnected for a
three-    generation family which has been without
supply since Queen's Birthday weekend.

* We are inviting the Mayor and all City Councillors to come and show
their support to the  people of Auckland City. Sunday 11 July, 116a Grey
Street, Onehunga at 1pm.

Yours faithfully, etc
____________________________________
 The Mayor & City Councillors
Auckland City Council
17 June 1999

Dear Mayor & Councillors,         MORATORIUM CALL

The Water Pressure Group at its weekly organisational meeting of 16 June,
decided  unanimously to send the following message to you all. 58 members
were present:

We have studied the Auckland City Council Press Release issued by Cr Kay Mc
Kelvie on
11 June, and wish to praise Council for its mature and positive response to
submissions regarding Metrowater Ltd.

Since Council now recognises as a key theme:
 "The issue of whether Metrowater should become a Stand Alone
Business Unit,
    giving greater Council control again, given its current LATE
status".
This means that Metrowater's future is now in question.

Given this situation, we would strongly urge the Mayor and Council to
utilise to the full, the
"control"  Council has, to implement an immediate moratorium on any further
water restrictions and disconnections by Metrowater Ltd of its customers
who have paid for their water but are disputing wastewater charges.

You are now aware of the depth of public feeling over the issue of
commercialised water
services, and we would suggest that further actions of a punitive nature by
Metrowater Ltd can only escalate the situation.

We hope for an urgent response to this request, and await a reply.

Yours faithfully, etc
___________________________________