South Dunedin Flood (3 June 2015): Bruce Hendry via ODT

Bruce Hendry (81) wrote a report on last June’s flooding after becoming fed up with the lack of answers from the Dunedin City Council.

### ODT Online Sat, 13 Feb 2016
Flooding: lack of maintenance blamed
By Vaughan Elder
A man who helped build South Dunedin’s drainage network says a lack of maintenance exacerbated problems caused by last year’s record-breaking flood. […] “Eight months after what has probably been the biggest and most expensive disaster in Dunedin since the 1929 floods, answers relating to the future and safety of those most affected, particularly residents of South Dunedin, have not been given,” he said in the report.
Read more


3.11.15 [Post] South Dunedin Flood | Correspondence & Debriefing Notes released by DCC today #LGOIMA

Kerr, Elizabeth LGOIMA Correspondence Hendry and Williams 2015

Kerr, Elizabeth LGOIMA Flood Debrief Notes 2015


Previously published at this website; DCC reply is still awaited within the 20 working day envelope:

January 25, 2016 at 10:41 am

From: Elizabeth Kerr
Sent: Monday, 25 January 2016 12:23 p.m.
To: Sandy Graham
Cc: Kristy Rusher; Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: LGOIMA Request – Ref No. 531354

Dear Sandy

LGOIMA Request – June 2015 Dunedin Flood
Reference No. 531354

In reference to the news article in today’s Otago Daily Times, ‘April date for report on flooding’
I note the anticipated report is subject to peer review:

“Mr McCabe told the Otago Daily Times the lengthy timeline was needed to ensure the report was “robust”, including an external peer review of its findings.”

I note the earlier council report, tabled at the full council meeting on 30 November 2015 (I attended this meeting):

Report – Council – 30/11/2015 (PDF, 553 KB)
Infrastructure Performance During June 2015 Flood Event

Click to access ma_council_r_Flood_2015_11_30.pdf

I request the following information:

1. Was the flood report of 30/11/15 peer reviewed?

2. What was the name(s) of the peer reviewer(s) and their professional accreditation and or relevant work experience?

3. Is the peer review(s) available for public scrutiny, and if so I request a copy in digital format by email.

I look forward to your reply.

Kind regards, Elizabeth

DCC has forwarded the following request to new group manager transport Ian McCabe, for reply:

January 25, 2016 at 9:36 pm


From: Elizabeth Kerr
Sent: Monday, 25 January 2016 9:24 p.m.
To: Sandy Graham; DCC LGOIMA Information Request
Cc: Kristy Rusher; Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: LGOIMA Request – Ref No. 531420

Further to my use of the online form at DCC website:

Dear Sandy

LGOIMA Request – South Dunedin mudtanks and stormwater drains
Reference No. 531420

I request the following information:

1. Can Dunedin City Council tell me if all mudtanks and stormwater drains in the South Dunedin catchment have been physically cleared in the time elapsed since the 3 June 2015 flood?

2. How many times have these mudtanks and stormwater drains been checked and cleared since the 3 June 2015 flood?

3. Which contractor / subcontractor has been responsible for this monitoring and clearance work since the 3 June 2015 flood?

4. Who (name and staff position) at Dunedin City Council has been directly responsible for checking the contractor / subcontractor work since the 3 June 2015 flood?

5. Are there any items of stormwater infrastructure in the South Dunedin catchment that are known to be blocked or cannot be cleared (if for any reason), since the 3 June 2015 flood?

I look forward to your reply in digital format by email.

Kind regards, Elizabeth

Otago Daily Times Published on Jun 4, 2015
Raw aerial video of Dunedin Flooding
Video courtesy One News.

Related Posts and Comments:
4.2.16 2GP commissioner appears to tell Council outcome… #hazardzones
4.2.16 Level responses to Dunedin mayor’s hippo soup #Jun2015flood
30.1.16 DCC Rates: LOCAL CONTEXT not Stats —Delta and Hippopotamuses
25.1.16 DCC: South Dunedin Integrated Catchment Management Plan (ICMP)
19.1.16 Listener 23.1.16 (letter): South Dunedin #Jun2015flood
16.1.16 NZ Listener 16.1.16 (letter): South Dunedin #Jun2015flood
10.1.16 Infrastructure ‘open to facile misinterpretation’…. or local ignore
5.1.16 Hammered from all sides #fixit [dunedinflood Jun2015]
● 24.12.15 Site notice: posts removed
3.11.15 South Dunedin Flood | Correspondence & Debriefing Notes released by DCC today #LGOIMA

█ For more, enter the terms *flood*, *hazard* or *south dunedin* in the search box at right.

King Edward St - South Dunedin Flood June 2015 []

South Dunedin flood June 2015 []

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Images: – South Dunedin Flood June 2015


Filed under Business, Climate change, DCC, Democracy, District Plan, Economics, Events, Geography, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Town planning, Travesty, Urban design

34 responses to “South Dunedin Flood (3 June 2015): Bruce Hendry via ODT

  1. Elizabeth

    DCC, the miserable screwy outfit.

    Great comments to the Bruce Hendry story at ODT Online:

    Submitted by Trev on Sat, 13/02/2016 – 7:33am.

    I totally agree with Bruce Hendry’s comments about Sth Dunedin mudtank cleaning or the lack thereof. A council manager had earlier stated via the ODT that mudtank cleaning by contractors was periodically audited by checking a few mudtanks for cleaning compliance and extrapolating those results statistically to all mudtanks. Read more


    Well done Mr Hendry
    Submitted by russandbev on Sat, 13/02/2016 – 9:21am.

    Bruce Hendry is right on a number of fronts and he has the experience to justify his position. It is unacceptable for the DCC to still not have their own report on the flood but much of that time I assume will be being taken up by trying to justify Mayor Cull’s position that the underlying cause of this flood was to do with climate change. What Cull and a number of his colleagues won’t accept was that this was a weather event and the city’s infrastructure, through basic neglect of design, installation, maintenance and operation, failed to meet an entirely forcastable event. Read more


    Time to listen
    Submitted by Calvin Oaten on Sat, 13/02/2016 – 11:19am.

    Big ‘ups’ to Bruce Hendry for coming out with this condemnatory comment on the cause and effects of the June 2015 South Dunedin flood. His position to do so is exemplary having been involved at the outset with the design and development of upgrading the system to the state it is in today.
    The drama was exacerbated by the lack of maintenance both at the mud tank inlets and the intake screens at the pump house. The fact that a report on these aspects is not due till April, ten full months after the event, suggests a serious problem within the department responsible. Read more


    Flooding and DCC mud tanks
    Submitted by Barnaby on Sat, 13/02/2016 – 11:26am.

    If Mayor Cull and councillors spent as much time and effort, not to mention money, getting on with running the place and providing good core services, as they do trying to defer blame and accountability, Dunedin would be a far better place. Here are the views of an expert who squarely rests the responsibility for 3 June 2015 floods at the DCC’s feet. Keeping the public waiting, as in the case of the Citifleet fraud, and Jacks Point and Luggate fiasco for DCC’s Delta, simply “long fingers” the whole process while yet another limp ambiguous report is doctored and spun together. It is very basic propaganda designed to distract from any genuine effort to seek a remedy for poor performance. Read more

    The fact that DCC has deliberately chosen to provide (yes) disaster reporting across two departments is fairly indicative of silos for obfuscation and avoidance. The less than transparent peer review process adopted by DCC is another handy smear of whitewash. But don’t forget people, before both reports are seen together for full public examination, DCC has already told us that its lawyers and insurers say the council is not liable for the flood damage. Do they think we’re stupid.

    █ 27.11.15 ODT: Council ‘not liable for flood damage’
    “The Dunedin City Council says it is not liable for private property damage caused by the South Dunedin flood, despite admitting problems with its pumping network prolonged the pain for residents. […] The issue had been considered by the council’s lawyers and insurers, but the advice from both was the council was not liable, [council infrastructure and networks general manager Ruth] Stokes said.”

    The icing on that has been the nonsensical witless parade by Mayor Cull, blaming climate change, sea level rise and an extreme weather event. All since disproved, except that the mayor has very foolishly decided to act like a stuck record. Good news: We can play frisbee with that if it takes a court to decide.

    Millions of dollars of flood damage have been caused to South Dunedin and all fingers point at the local authority of denial.

    • Hype O'Thermia

      “DCC has already told us, that its lawyers and its insurance providers said the council was not liable for the flood damage.”
      They may have SAID that, but were they correct or was it a bit of wishful thinking?
      Say it out loud, ride a bicycle widdershins 3 times around the Octagon and rub camel shackles under a full moon, and it will come true. It’s a well-known fact, just like the flooding being caused by [anthropogenic of course] sea-level rise.

      • Elizabeth

        “They may have SAID that, but were they correct or was it a bit of wishful thinking?”
        Maybe DCTL has a touch of payout panic, given the DCC’s overburden of existing debt which Finance chair Richard Thomson keeps implying is a state of health. Wishful indeed.

    • Diane Yeldon

      DCC is answerable to the ORC. But another ODT article this morning includes comment that the ORC itself is very slack (again), this time with respect to protecting lakes in its area.
      Who watches the watchers? Under our supposedly democratic system, citizens have no power to make sure that these agencies (DCC and ORC) do their jobs properly, even to the basic standard of avoiding citizens’ foreseeable property damage and financial loss. Ombudsmen’s office is concerned only with individual grievances. So if you are just one of hundreds adversely affected by urban flooding because a territorial authority doesn’t adequately maintain its water infrastructure, it would not be of any use to complain to the Ombudsmen. And neither the Department of Internal Affairs nor the Minister for Local Government ever seem to directly interfere in local government matters. The influential ‘Local Government NZ’ is a local government employees’ union and so is the Association of Local Government Managers. So the lobbying to central government never comes from the ratepayers’ point of view. I guess ratepayers’ organisations are all voluntary and take up a lot of unpaid personal time. They are similar to the efforts of Forest and Bird and other natural environment protection groups – or built heritage protection groups, for that matter – resulting in not a level playing field at all. And that’s merely with respect to the upholding of the law, let alone preventing stupid things which happen to be legal from occurring. I really wonder at a government or society which does not bother to enforce its own laws with respect to its own institutions. Is like saying citizens must be law-abiding but government and its subordinate agencies need not be – a double standard.

  2. Calvin Oaten

    I see that New York and surrounds are experiencing the coldest weather period in over twenty years. Funny that, aren’t we living in the hottest decades on record due to CO2 increases, sea level rises and all things catastrophic? Better not tell Dave Cull and Cr Benson-Pope that or Jinty will be bursting into tears.

    • Calvin Oaten

      Boston facing its coldest Valentines Day in forty years! Just Google New York Cold Snap and read all about it. Watch for the IPCC going into defence mode big time.

  3. Hype O'Thermia

    One way to get a handle on South Dunedin sea level rise would be to put out a call for people who were keen gardeners, who had lived there (including those who now live somewhere else) and get them to go to their old section, put down a small drill (auger) hole and see if it looks like they strike water level lower, higher or the same as they remember. It wouldn’t make a big mess of the current garden/section, hole only about 5cm wide which is sufficient to monitor the water level over a period covering tides going in and out, and though “anecdotal” i.e. generally dismissed if not in accord with current truthy-tales (cf Maori oral not written) is unlikely to be less credible than mayoral assertions.

  4. Elizabeth

    Time to think a little about what it would cost DCC for any liability established for South Dunedin and Mosgiel – for any laxness in infrastructure ‘systems’ with the 3 June 2015 flooding.

    We really have to consider closely why DCC is slanging Climate Change about like a sheep’s innards. Most embarrassing, and my, how it sloshes – but who is trying to hide facts AND FIGURES (the stench). Imagine if before the end of this financial year, or even after the Annual Plan 2016/17 is signed off with what rates increase, that a multimillion-dollar rock was stumbled upon that ratcheted up the rates increase, or maybe affected DCC’s credit rating (suddenly), should the insurers desert. Golly. We peasants can’t imagine the least of it.

    At a time when the GCFO and superior acolytes are finding all sorts bumping around in the financials, the legacy of previous eras that would frighten the pants off even the keenest council accountant there to set the books right.

    Then Delta, if it is to be saved by the likes of a Boult or a Coburn in the laundry of the Yaldhurst mortgagee tender process (suddenly – again!).

    What a truly compounding fireworks display this election year doth bring.

    • Calvin Oaten

      Then there comes the distinct possibility that Cull’s card up his sleeve, Climate Change and sea rise being the great escape from blame on the South Dunedin flood of June 2015 will hit the great rock of Mother Nature blowing the whole thing out of the water.
      The recent weather event in NE USA where the temperature in Boston reached a low minus 9F or -22C and worse, in Central Park New York a record low of -1F or -18.3C breached a record of +2F or -16.7C which was recorded during WW1! That can not be disregarded by the so call scientific pundits who have kept alive this scam for so long. Let alone the lame followers.

  5. Elizabeth

    ODT 17.2.16 (page 12)

    ODT 17.2.16 letter to editor Evans p12 (1)

  6. Rob Hamlin

    I think that what this is saying is that “The contractor only fixes them when they go wrong”. In which case, what is the case for paying out vast amounts on an ongoing maintenance contract which seems to formally lock in contractor non performance?

    One of the reasons why air travel is so safe, and getting safer, is that airliners (with a few exceptions I suspect ) thankfully are NOT maintained on this lackadaisical basis. Routine checks and action in anticipation of predictable failure are the norm. When a failure does occur with an airliner vast resources are expended to learn what happened for the purposes of adjusting such routine maintenance to avoid the recurrence of such a failure in future.

    It looks as if nothing is happening along these lines here. We will therefore simply wait until the next failure. it also strongly suggests what the nature of this long delayed mud tank report will be. It would be interesting to see if the ‘maintenance??’ of the elderly steel bridges etc on the Taieri Gorge Railway, and the Stadium roof, are being managed along similar lines.

    Perhaps at the root of this is an issue with the insurance industry in this country. It seems that an attitude now exists within this industry that risk mitigation is an unnecessary expense as large payouts can simply be handed on to the general public in the form of premium increases. Such increases probably also lead to profit increases due to the same actuarial spread being applied to larger amounts flowing in and out. This would of course make risk mitigation not only unnecessary, but undesirable. This is of course one of the implicit aspects of Jane Kelsey’s FIRE economy.

    It is my understanding that Christchurch is now the largest single insurance incident in history. It is surely incredible that the insurance cost of this event should exceed the wholesale devastation inflicted upon the coast line of Japan by the 2011 tidal waves. This coastline is highly urbanised and Japan is not a third world country. It also, as we all know, included the major nuclear incident at Fukishima. How much would that incident alone have cost in insurance had it happened here, in Christchurch? Chances are that Jerry would have redzoned everything south of Miramar!

    It is indicative that there appears to be something very far wrong with the way that the insurance industry, and the government, operates in this country. South Dunedin, and the lack of direct insurance industry reaction to this apparently at least partially avoidable event, is just consistent with that larger pattern. Presumably the premiums will go up again.

  7. russandbev

    Rob, I think you are right. I alerted the Insurance Council to what I found out after an unlagged water fitting burst in a frost in my home. The reality is that heating systems are not required to be designed, fitted or maintained by licensed operators and indeed the work doesn’t even fall under a building code requirement. Any idiot can install a system and when it fails the insurers simply pay out. They were not interested in preventing this type of damage in future – as you say, all they do is to increase the premiums. The Insurance Council didn’t even reply to my emails and the Minister doesn’t give a stuff either. Easier by far to ignore systemic failures and this is exactly what the DCC are doing with the added sideshow of blaming global warming.

  8. photonz

    As a balance to Jane Kelsey’s extremist views and claims (that insurance companies are into obscene profiteering), it’s very easy to prove or disprove, simply by looking at their latest results of our biggest insurance companies.

    In 2014 Tower was paid $285m in premiums, and after payouts, re-insurance costs etc, they made a profit of $23m – that’s 8% – not particularly excessive for any company.

    In 2015 Tower was paid $304m in premiums, and after payouts, re-insurance costs etc, they made a loss of $8m – which is 3% loss.

    So over the last couple of years, they’ve made a 8% profit and a 3% loss. Effectively a 5% profit over two years, or 2.5% profit per year.

    And overall the company is worth less now than it was in the mid to late 2000s.

    Kelsey’s predictions time and time again, have proved to be more wrong than anyone else – perhaps not surprising when they come from a marxist about three galaxies past the Greens on the distant left end of the political spectrum.

    The surprising thing is people follow someone who gets it wrong all the time. It’s like continually believing a weather forecaster who every night is predicting a cyclone for Dunedin (when we’re not even in the tropics).

  9. Rob Hamlin

    photonz. You are, as usual, very selective in your quotations. Here is a larger excerpt from the Tower press release from which your figure presumably orginates. It’s hardly a tale of woe now is it?

    “TOWER delivers strong underlying earnings and confirms capital management TOWER has today reported a 36.4% increase in general insurance underlying net profit after tax (NPAT) to $17.9 million for the six months ended 31 March 2015. TOWERs reported …TOWER delivers strong underlying earnings and confirms capital management
    TOWER has today reported a 36.4% increase in general insurance underlying net profit after tax (NPAT) to $17.9 million for the six months ended 31 March 2015.

    TOWER’s reported net loss after tax of $4.9 million was impacted by the increased provisions of $22.6 million after tax for costs associated with the Canterbury earthquake events.

    Highlights from HY2015 include:

    • Gross Written Premium of $145.9 million, up 4.9% vs the prior corresponding period (pcp)
    • Underlying General Insurance NPAT of $17.9 million, up 36.4% vs pcp
    • Strong performance from the Pacific operations – 86.9% growth in underlying NPAT
    • Industry-leading Canterbury progress with 94% of claims settled and closed
    • Underlying EPS of 10.0 cents per share (cps), up 103% vs pcp
    • Half year dividend 8.5 cps unimputed, up 30.8% vs pcp
    • Confirmed on market buy back of up to $34 million”

    The complete release can be found here:

  10. photonz

    You quote that after increased payouts they had a net LOSS of $4.9 million.

    So are you backing my point up that they are not raking in a fortune?

  11. Rob Hamlin

    Further to my last posting, NPAT means net profit after tax, which gives a premium/profit ratio of just over 12%. Given that retail insurance is actually quite low risk, as long as risk and reinsurance are competently managed, that’s a very attractive figure.

    Further on in the TOWER press release we have this:

    “TOWER Chairman Michael Stiassny said: “Rising premiums, stabilising reinsurance costs, favourable weather, Pacific policy growth and prudent capital management have supported underlying shareholder returns.”

    And then this:

    “Mr Stiassny said that, in line with TOWER’s policy of paying 90-100% of underlying NPAT in dividends, the Board was pleased to announce a half-year dividend of 8.5 cents per share unimputed, an increase of 30.8% on the prior corresponding period.”

    Which means that whatever TOWER’S actual reported loss was, the shareholders get their money.

    And then this from the same highly credible source:

    “We are pleased to confirm today our intention to implement an on market share buyback of up to $34 million, or up to 10% of TOWER’s issued capital, to commence shortly.”

    Share buybacks have the effect of increasing the capital value of remaining issued shares in line with the ratio repurchased by the company. It is, in effect another way of paying out money to shareholders. This on top of the very high dividend per share payout.

    Here are the top 20 shareholders in TOWER at the end of 2015 by %. It’s dominated by institutions of the type that make lucrative, long term safe investments. It’s hard to unequivocally state what the overseas stake is, but it’s clearly significant, and thus (another) significant invisibles drain on this country. I rest, both my own and Jane Kelsey’s case.

    1 BNP Paribas Nominees (NZ) Limited 7.78
    2 Accident Compensation Corporation 6.61
    3 Citibank Nominees (New Zealand) Limited 6.40
    4 Guardian Nominees No 2 A/C 5.71
    5 FNZ Custodians Limited 4.22
    6 BNP Paribas Nominees (NZ) Limited 3.83
    7 National Nominees Limited 3.76
    8 New Zealand Superannuation 3.39
    9 JP Morgan Nominees Australia Limited 3.21
    10 RBC Investor Services Australia Nominees pty ltd 2.35
    11 BT NZ Unit Trust Nominees Limited 2.03
    12 BNP Paribas Nominees (NZ) Limited 1.89
    13 BNP Paribas Nominees Pty Limited 1.89
    14 JP Morgan Chase Bank NA NZ Branch 1.87
    15 National Nominees New Zealand Limited 1.55
    16 Citicorp Nominees Pty Limited 1.38
    17 HSBC Nominees (New Zealand) Limited 1.22
    18 JBWere (NZ) Nominees Limited 0.95
    19 HSBC Nominees (New Zealand) Limited 0.89
    20 Investment Custodial Services Limited 0.82

    • photonz

      Rob – you give a list FILLED with NZ companies, and claim although you don’t really know, this is surely evidence of significant overseas ownership.

      You say all these funds make lucrative investments, without the slightest idea of what they have actually invested in, or even if those investments are giving positive or negative returns.

      And you make out that the millions set aside to pay for Christchurch is only some sort of “provision” and it will never have to be paid, and should be counted as company profit.

      I’m sure the people of Christchurch will be happy to hear the money set aside for their payout is not actually real money but only a “provision” and will really go into company profit.

      And then you say you rest your (and Jane Kelsey’s) case on this.

      Perhaps that’s not surprising when you so closely follow an extremist whose predictions have been outrageously wrong for more than 20 years (she’s been predicting catastrophe and Armageddon for the NZ economy every year, since at least the mid 1990s).

  12. Rob Hamlin


    No I am not. The loss is created by a ‘provision’. This is not a payout, it is simply moving money into an account within the company after the final profits wash-up to cover losses that may (or may not) occur in the future. This money remains under the ownership and control of the company, and will deliver an investment return.

    As I point out in my last post, NPAT (net profit after tax) is the key figure that indicates per-period profitability. Despite this provision, as they are happy to pay nearly all of this NPAT out in shareholder dividends, as well as boosting this with a share buyback, it indicates no high level of fear of future events in the executive suite.

    • photonz

      Rob – You say NPAT is the key figure, immediately after dismissing the EXACT same thing – an NPAT of minus $4.9m.

      If you don’t think the costs to payout for the Canterbury earthquake should be counted, then perhaps you should tell Tower, their accountants, auditors, and IRD that they shouldn’t have put that in their 2015 accounts because it’s only a “provision”.

      While you’re at it, perhaps you could tell the IRD that “provision” I have to make for depreciation for my work vehicle and equipment for this year isn’t real either, ’cause I actually had to pay for them years ago.

      A decade ago Tower’s shares were well above $2. Even if the company did not grow at all over the decade, inflation should have taken them to just under $3 by now. However today they’re at $1.61.

      That certainly doesn’t match the claim of an industry who is raking in massive profits.

  13. Rob Hamlin


    In terms of cash movement outside of your company your provision most certainly is not real. It is an internal transaction that allows you to advantageously spread a single real transaction (expense) over several tax periods. That’s why it’s referred to as a non-cash item. This is also why there is a difference between an income statement and a statement of cash flows and a reported and ‘underlying’ NPAT.

    I do not think that the IRD insist that you depreciate things, but your accountant will certainly recommend it to take down your reported profits and thus what IRD take off you over the lifetime of the asset. IRD may well set limits on you as to what degree things may be depreciated for this reason. The non-reality of depreciation and other non-cash provisions is the basis of depreciation fraud, about which I have made several postings. This is also one reason why IRD are generally so interested in it.

    A good accountant can use these non-cash provisions along with other tools to reduce a company’s reported profit and thus tax liability to pretty much zero while still paying stonking salaries to their managers and whopping dividends to their shareholders. It’s a real problem – Google ‘UK corporate tax evasion’ and see.

    I think depreciation ‘expense’ of this type may be the reason why the campsites that I attended over the long holdiays this year were full of suspiciously clean and new looking galumphing 4×4’s with various large and small company logos all over them. Some of which one really struggled to see why they needed a 4×4 depreciation expense at all. Perhaps the IRD will ask them the same questions all in good time.

    As to Tower’s shares, what they stand at now per share compared to ten years ago depends on several things other than profit, most notably how many have been issued and how the company is structured. If Apple had stuck with their initial structure and number of issued shares, each one would be worth God knows what by now.

    • photonz

      Rob says “I do not think that the IRD insist that you depreciate things”

      It’s obvious you know nothing about depreciation, or even how it works. Not to mention running a business and putting in a company tax return. I have a printout from IRD thicker than a phone book on how I must depreciate plant and equipment.

      It is not some kind of rort. When I spend say $20,000 on a company vehicle or equipment, I can’t claim it – I can only claim the depreciation on it, a little bit at a time, over many years.

      For you to say that it’s not real and actually some kind of fraud shows ignorance.

      It’s also obvious you know nothing about private use of company vehicles. I also use my company vehicle for private use, and pay so much in fringe benefit tax for the privilege, that it would probably be slightly cheaper to just buy another vehicle for private use.

  14. Rob Hamlin


    Oh dear, you do seem to be getting upset! I am aware that the IRD have many rules about depreciation, but they are about how you must use it, not that you must use it, full stop. The English language is a precision instrument, can you see the difference there?

    As to the private use of company cars being a tax avoidance issue; why on earth do you think that such a high level of fringe benefit tax was introduced on them in the first place? As to the rate of that tax – well some, like you apparently, declare their private mileage honestly and get taxed for it… …and some don’t. Some of those supposedly working 4×4’s were huge, extra’d up to the max and were really, really, really, shiny & clean.

    As to the ignorance claim. It’s my experience that those who get upset in debate and claim ignorance in others that disagree with them are often ignorant themselves. If you lose your temper, you lose – period.

    And there, I think I will leave it. Go have a beer.

    • photonz

      Rob – The reason I’m probably intolerant of your ignorance, is because for the last two weeks I’ve been working until after midnight preparing my company tax for my accountant.

      Just like I’ve done for the last twenty years.

      It’s about 160 hours work that I get no pay for (that’s probably a month’s work for you).

      So when someone (who I’m guessing has never done a company return in their life) shows total and utter ignorance about things, like your farcical claim that I don’t have to use depreciation, then you can understand that I won’t have a lot of tolerance or patience for their ignorance.

      Especially when they put on a big pretense that they know what they are talking about. When it’s blatantly obvious they haven’t got the slightest clue and are blurting utter nonsense.

      Like people who pay fringe benefit tax to use their company vehicle privately must be screwing the system, just because they cleaned their vehicle.

  15. Elizabeth

    Re LGOIMA requests dated 25 January 2016 (copy at post top of thread) – in response to a query I made (18.2.16).


    From: Kristy Rusher
    Sent: Sunday, 21 February 2016 9:25 p.m.
    To: Elizabeth Kerr
    Subject: RE: LGOIMA Requests – 531420 and 531354 [South Dunedin flooding 3 June 2015]

    Hi Elizabeth,

    Responses to both requests are due on the 23rd of February. The Council calculates due dates from the calculator on the webpage of the Ombudsman’s office. For your information, the calculator is available at this link:

    Regards, Kristy Rusher

    Kristy Rusher
    Manager Civic and Legal, Civic
    Dunedin City Council

  16. Gurglars

    So M (mudtank spin) day is Tuesday.

    Now that will be a read that will test the collective whatiffer skills.

  17. Hype O'Thermia

    Mud sh- sh- sharkkkkkkkk!
    The wisdom of Zappa: ask any vegetable, and the chances are good, that the vegetable will respond to you.
    Frank Zappa never wrote anything based on the LGOIMA, despite what scholars may say. Dissertation desperation, that’s all they’re about.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s