National Business Review 16.12.16
Hunter’s Corner by Tim Hunter (page 2)
Opinion: Lines companies: it’s worse than we thought
The article appears in today’s NBR print edition, available at bookstores and supermarkets, and by subscription. Short excerpt at right.
Tim Hunter has appraised the Deloitte report and the activity -or not- of the lines company Aurora Energy and ‘contractor’ Delta Utility Services. He also provides brief overview of the companies’ position as seen (problematically!) by industry regulator, the Commerce Commission. The award-winning business writer typically shows fine ability to crack code, applying thrift and plain sense in noting gross impediments to good governance and operational performance. Mr Hunter could write the book on Aurora/Delta, the ugly sisters, a true Horror Story —not the kitten tale by Deloitte, which anyway gets things rolling. As one of three investigations, Deloitte’s was always going to suffer lack of scope and independence given its commissioners:
the brothers Grimm —DCHL and DCC.
█ For more, enter the terms *aurora*, *delta*, *grady*, *luggate*, *jacks point*, *dchl*, *auditor-general*, *noble*, *yaldhurst* or *epic fraud* in the search box at right.
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
This post is offered in the public interest.
*Image: NBR excerpt by smartphone (screenshot)
14 responses to “Tim Hunter, NBR —Aurora/Delta, DCC and ComCom”
ODT 17.12.12 (page 30)
Talking about the stadium, what has Terry got lined up for 2017. Another bogan event like drifting? Who paid for the 800 tonnes of concrete, btw?
Has he kicked any more competitor’s heads in as bragged about in ODT article on their fifth birthday?
Or have they kicked his head in? Shit happens.
Where did the 800 tonnes of concrete go afterwards? Who paid for that disposal?
How come Tim Hunter in Auckland gets it and Cull de Mayor and Graeme Zombie don’t.
Is he prescient or are they thick?
Answer to Peter and russandbev: if time make that do a quick LGOIMA request addressed to Terry Davies at DVML, Cc DCC chief executive.
They keep on trying though:
As most of these events over which the Stadium is ‘gaining traction’ could have been held in venues that DVML also controls – or by other venues that are available around the town and are better suited, and with which this heavily subsidised public venue also competes, then this article can be perceived for the absolute drivel that it is.
Note also that McPravda has published this PR exercise – a leopard never really changes its spots.
As the subvention payments are no longer available to support such pantomimes in future, one would assume that there will be a distinct sustained loss of traction by the Stadium as it starts to ‘drift’ in the manner seen on its expensive concrete road.
“This has been good year ” was the opening gambit by Terry Davies to the article in the ODT. Well, we’ll just have to wait till the annual report comes out to see won’t we. Conferences are so far behind budget in the Town Hall -the premium site- that the budget is well and truly undershot that the overall complexes cannot make the difference. Especially not when one considers the little return from the premier user rugby at the Stadium. The next annual report will be a document to behold, without the injections of the subvention payments from Aurora.
I really did hope that the ODT wouldn’t have continued this rubbish. Yes, they supported the build of the stadium, but surely now, along with everyone else they can see the long-term effects of the stadium on Dunedin. Terry Davies is of course, keen on continuing the spin and plain BS now that the stadium costs and income are scattered among all of Dunedin’s facilities. The truth is that the stadium was built not only on a quagmire of mud ready for liquefaction, but on a mountain of debt – at the expense we now know of a safe and reliable electrical network. The stadium does not have a maintenance budget worth mentioning, it has little use outside professional rugby which still fails to pay properly for its use, and its income is still subsidised by the fiasco that is Aurora. All surrounded by a small coterie of “directors” that don’t seem to have a clue what they are doing.
As for the economic benefits – I have never ever seen a comparison of what those would have been if the stadium had never happened and Carisbrook had continued with a tidy up of the changerooms and media facilities. Why? Far too embarrassing I suspect.
This PR spin in a word. Crap.
I didn’t take much notice of Terry’s advertising column because it sources to The Star which is renowned for lack of journalistic investigation.
Terry Davies will be off looking for another job soon enough as DCC experiences the most straightening times …. all thanks to whistleblower Richard Healey’s overt campaign that started in October, to reveal the true state of the Aurora/Delta electricity network, the immense lack of compliance with Health and Safety for lines workers and the general public. Thanks of course, it follows, to the thugs that run the council-owned companies; indeed, pointing out the multiple failures brought by DCC elected representatives in not keeping us and our network safe and secure.
As a consequence the stadium flying pig is a stuck pig. The ‘great dawning’ is microscopically slow to register amongst those who habitually spend and steal our dollars.
Unfortunately Elizabeth it’s also public recognition that lacks perspicacity with respect to the Stadium.
The 20% who favoured and favour the Stadium gain the upper hand in spin bulls*it and unbelievable lies thus the great unwatched rarely get to the nub of the total incompetence of the operators and financial failure of the operations.
Whenever I meet someone who doesn’t think the Fubar Stadium is a success – ie not making a colossal loss, not on constant life support sucking the city to danger-level anaemia – another minute of conversation reveals that they are regular readers of, or contributors to What if?
The number of people who sincerely believe that it’s an asset is disturbing, yum yum Kool Aid.
Search engine term at What if? Dunedin today:
*what is business ethics*
[or, what is corporate responsibility, what are corporate ethics]
From an ultra quick Google only:
Business ethics is the study of proper business policies and practices regarding potentially controversial issues, such as corporate governance, insider trading, bribery, discrimination, corporate social responsibility and fiduciary responsibilities.
Business ethics ensure that a certain required level of trust exists between consumers and various forms of market participants with businesses. For example, a portfolio manager must give the same consideration to the portfolios of family members and small individual investors. Such practices ensure that the public receives fair treatment.
The concept of business ethics arose in the 1960s as companies became more aware of a rising consumer-based society that showed concerns regarding the environment, social causes and corporate responsibility. Business ethics goes beyond just a moral code of right and wrong; it attempts to reconcile what companies must do legally versus maintaining a competitive advantage over other businesses. Firms display business ethics in several ways.
Business ethics (also corporate ethics) is a form of applied ethics or professional ethics that examines ethical principles and moral or ethical problems that arise in a business environment. It applies to all aspects of business conduct and is relevant to the conduct of individuals and entire organisations.
Business ethics refers to contemporary standards or sets of values that govern the actions and behaviour of an individual in the business organization.
Business ethics has normative and descriptive dimensions. As a corporate practice and a career specialisation, the field is primarily normative. Academics attempting to understand business behaviour employ descriptive methods. The range and quantity of business ethical issues reflects the interaction of profit-maximising behaviour with non-economic concerns. Interest in business ethics accelerated dramatically during the 1980s and 1990s, both within major corporations and within academia. For example, most major corporations today promote their commitment to non-economic values under headings such as ethics codes and social responsibility charters. Adam Smith said, “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” Governments use laws and regulations to point business behaviour in what they perceive to be beneficial directions. Ethics implicitly regulates areas and details of behaviour that lie beyond governmental control. The emergence of large corporations with limited relationships and sensitivity to the communities in which they operate accelerated the development of formal ethics regimes.
Business ethics and corporate social responsibility
An Anglo American case study
Business ethics are moral principles that guide the way a business behaves. The same principles that determine an individual”s actions also apply to business.
Acting in an ethical way involves distinguishing between “right” and “wrong” and then making the “right” choice. It is relatively easy to identify unethical business practices. For example, companies should not use child labour. They should not unlawfully use copyrighted materials and processes. They should not engage in bribery.
However, it is not always easy to create similar hard-and-fast definitions of good ethical practice. A company must make a competitive return for its shareholders and treat its employees fairly. A company also has wider responsibilities. It should minimise any harm to the environment and work in ways that do not damage the communities in which it operates. This is known as corporate social responsibility.
Codes of behaviour:
The law is the key starting point for any business. Most leading businesses also have their own statement of Business Principles which set out their core values and standards. In Anglo American’s case, this is called “Good Citizenship”.
Or go study it [professional discipline of learning] at tertiary level if, for example, your company, council, organisation or corporation is SICK, CRASS, THREATENING, or UNDERPERFORMING (other words also apply) ….naturally, Harvard Business School sharpens its teeth on the matter (sign up sign up).