Super city water needs accountability

26 July 2009 Media Statement

Super city water needs accountability

The Government must give urgent consideration to protecting Auckland ratepayers from the super city's new monopoly water company, says Labour's Auckland Issues spokesperson Phil Twyford.

A bill currently before select committee merges the existing council water operations but leaves out the Royal Commission's recommendation for an independent performance auditor to protect ratepayers.

“A mechanism would be needed to keep the new company honest in the absence of competition and ensure there was no price gouging,” says Phil Twyford.

"The Government intends to roll out volumetric pricing across the super city so the more you use the more you pay. Some degree of volume-charging will help water conservation but Aucklanders want to know they won't be whacked with hefty increases on their water bills.

"Currently only Auckland City's Metrowater has full volume-charging. If Metrowater pricing was applied to other ratepayers, a family of four in Waitakere, North Shore or Manukau would face a $700 a year increase.

Whether it is an independent regulator or the super council itself there has to be a mechanism to make sure water charging is fair and transparent, said Phil Twyford.

“The new water monopoly should be held accountable to standards in financial reporting, customer service and environmental impact.

"Two recent examples of Watercare's behaviour have underlined the need for accountability. First as part of planning the integration of the water companies they wrote to the councils asking for a dossier on their water staff including age, sex, length of service and whether they were union members. This was totally inappropriate.

"Then they asked the councils to sign blanket confidentiality agreements. This way of working has no place in a publicly owned monopoly. When I challenged Watercare executives on this at the select committee they said they needed to protect commercially sensitive agreements with contractors. I find that unconvincing as such matters could be dealt with on a case by case basis."

ENDS