 Water
Pressure Group NetNews |
WPG's reply to Gavin Ellis- Editor NZ Herald
Mr Ellis,
Your reply proves that Ike Finau's signs are truthful, and therefore
cannot be "lying" or "defamatory", thus Brian Rudman needs to
publish a retraction as we have requested.
You state, in your reply,"It is true that Mrs Sefuiva voted against
and Dr Hucker abstained on June 26, 2000 when Councillor Leadbeater
moved that
Metrowater be abolished and its operations transferred to a SABU."
You also confirm that:"Both councillors signed the pledge, before the 1998
council
elections to work to towards the swift dissolution of Metrowater and
to return the Auckland water service to direct democratic control."
You didn't quote the pledge correctly.It actually states :"I will actively
work towards the swift dissolution of Metrowater Ltd
and its holding company, and I will vote for the return of Auckland's
water service to direct democratic control, answerable to
consumers via the Auckland City Council".
For you to claim that Hucker and Sefuiva's actions in failing to support
Maire Leadbeater's motion that Metrowater be abolished
and its operations transferred to a SABU "..wasn't a case of
breaking their pledge" - is completely untenable.
Ordinary people with a bit of basic commonsense, don't find it hard
to understand.
If someone has signed a pledge promising to vote for the swift dissolution
of Metrowater, and when such a vote comes up, votes
against that pledge, or abstains - then - they have broken their
pledge - end of story.
The facts are that on 26 June 2001, both Hucker and Sefuiva broke both
their personal pledges to vote for the swift dissolution of
Metrowater, and City Vision policy which was to return Metrowater back
to direct Council control as a SABU.
In breaking their promises they lied to the public. We repeat
- Ike Finau's signs told the truth, so how can they be 'lying' or
'defamatory'?
It is true that City Vision did not have a majority on the Auckland
City Council in 2000. So what? They didn't have a majority in 1999
either, but at least they all stuck to their policy and pledges and
voted for the abolition of Metrowater.
In 2000, 4 City Vision Councillors, Maire Leadbeater, Richard Northey,
Jan Welch and Faye Storer kept faith with the public on
Metrowater, while Bruce Hucker, Penny Sefuiva, Kay McKelvie and Vern
Walsh did not. The 'left' was not united on keeping their
election promises on Metrowater."endlessly relitigating old issues"
is garbage as well.
In 2000, over 8000 submissions were received calling for the abolition
of Metrowater. Yet again, more submissions were
received on the Metrowater issue than any other. It was perfectly
in order to put the issue to Council again.
(Please remember that in 1998, 12 Councillors were elected who had
campaigned for the abolition of Metrowater.)
What happened to keeping faith with the public by sticking to principles
and policy and fighting for your corner?
For you to state that "Dr Hucker and Penny Sefuiva have not taken legal
action against the signs at ike Finau's Warnock St house for
a variety of reasons, foremost amongst them being that they are democrats
who are reluctant to defy free speech." leaves
the Water Pressure Group gobsmacked with the sheer hypocrisy of this
position.
According to Rudman, both Councillors drew the signs (which they believed
were defamatory) to the attention of city officials, and tried
to have them removed on the basis of a bylaw which had as its objective
of trying to limit commercial advertising signs in a
residential area. These were not commercial advertising signs but political
protest signs.
We would like written confirmation from Brian Rudman that Bruce Hucker
and Penny Sefuiva approached city officials.
What were their names, when was this request made, and was the basis
of this request that Hucker and Sefuiva believed that the signs were
defamatory? We would like Rudman to confirm that neither Hucker or
Sefuiva have instigated defamation proceedings against Ike Finau.
We would like Rudman to confirm whether Hucker or Sefuiva have ever
made any attempt to discuss these signs with Ike Finau.
According to Rudman, Hucker and Sefuiva tried to have these signs removed!
By effectively perverting the use of a Council bylaw,
they tried to stop the public being told the truth about their failing
to keep their promises on Metrowater!
How on earth does this square with their 'being democrats who are reluctant
to stifle free speech'? What utter garbage.
Apparently, Hucker took exception to a sign stating that he was he
chief apologist for the Waikato pipeline and commercialised
water. (not Metrowater as you stated.)
Are you aware that at the Auckland City Council meeting of 10 August
2000, that the report of the Deputy Mayor Bruce
Hucker, which recommended the reconfirmation of support for theWaikato
pipeline was received, and that the Auckland City Council
then reconfirmed "its support for the Waikato pipeline as the next
major augmentation of bulk water supply to the Auckland region'?
Hucker played the leading role on Council to get this through. Fact.(City
Vision Councillors Leadbeater, Storer and Welch all voted
against the motion.)
You claim that "The left did achieve some significant reforms to Metrowater
however, getting new directors appointed, reviewing the
tarrif structures to help the elderly and those on low incomes."
With all due respect, we believe that it was the vigorous campaign of
the WPG, with the thousands of submissions received calling for
the abolition of Metrowater, backed up with the wastewater bill boycott
that was the basis for the shift in Metrowater's policy.
However, although the changed tarriff, which in 1999 dropped residential
fixed charges for water and wastewater services from
nearly $250 per year (before the tap was even turned on) to $60
per year, slightly improved the situation for those on low fixed
incomes who didn't use much water, by increasing the user charges for
water and wastewater - those who needed to use more
water - like the large low income families - were being financially
crippled. In 2000, user charges for water and wastewater services
increased again.
Ike Finau put up those signs because he and other Polynesian families
who had voted for Hucker and Sefuiva were now worse off.
City Vision's policy was opposed to user-charges - the new tarrifs
have increased user-charges. More broken promises.
We believe that citizens have a right to tell the truth about politicians
telling lies, and newspapers such as the New Zealand
Herald should be defending their freedom of expression, not helping to cover up for lying politicians.
Is Brian Rudman in the pockets of Hucker and Sefuiva?
Where does that leave the New Zealand Herald?
Brian Rudman's article did not reflect the facts of the matter.
It was one-sided, unbalanced journalism and we reiterate what we want
you to do in the interests of professional, balanced
journalism, in order to put the record straight.
1) Retract his comments about the signs being 'defamatory' and 'lying'
2) To apologise to Ike Finau and the Water Pressure Group for failing
to find out our side of the story, and not being factually
accurate. (Another factual inaccuracy is that "..a ratbag collection
of defamatory and abusive signs splattered along the fenceline"
have not been there 'for two years now'. We have photographic
evidence to prove this from the Auckland City Council themselves.
Signs went up on the fence only after the Auckland City Council officials
demanded that the other signs come down after 19 June
this year.)
3) To print the facts about the pledges Hucker and Sefuiva signed,City
Vision policy on water services and details of the vote on the
disbanding of Metrowater on 26 June 2001 and the failure of Hucker
and Sefuiva to support that motion.
We believe that our requests are very reasonable, and we are somewhat
astonished that we are having to repeat them.
If you are not prepared to do this, then we will have no option but
to make our correspondence public,{ our letters of complaint and your
response(s)}, so that people have the opportunity - which you aredenying
them in your publication - to read both sides of the story.
This will be the start.
If all three of our very reasonable requests have not been met in the
Rudman's City Column by Monday 12 November, you will leave us
no choice but to go public as promised, with all relevant correspondence
(including your reply as Editor.)
Unlike most politicians - the Water Pressure Group does have a reputation
for keeping our word.
Looking forward to your prompt reply.
Penny Bright
Media Spokesperson
Water Pressure Group (Auckland).
NZ Herald Article by Brian Rudman
Water Pressure Groups complaint letter to the NZ
Herald Editor
Reply from NZ Herald Editor Gavin Ellis
Response from WPG to the Reply form Gavin Ellis NZ Herald
Editor
Open letter from WPG to Auckland City Council
The Dominion Article David Mc LOUGHLIN
| Home | Join | Legal | F.A.Q | News | History | Press | Reconnect | Links |