Getting some accountability at PoAL

80 comments on “Getting some accountability at PoAL ”

• Comments are now closed

1. james 111 1

   5 April 2012 at 7:30 am

   Getting Some profitability back into POAL
   This should be the headline will the bill deal with being competitive with your opposition, and putting a platform in place that allows you to be competitive including labour rates.

   Or will that be totally forgotten about and left off the Table. Let the rate payers of Auckland effectively subsidise the Wharfies wages by the poor return that POAL hands back to the rate payers of Auckland 2.2% versus 18% that the rate payers of Tauranga get.
   • mickysavage 1.1

     5 April 2012 at 7:36 am

     James you should try something really unusual.  Go and read up the figures and come back with a reality based argument.  It will do wonders for your credibility.
   • Eddie 1.2

     5 April 2012 at 7:37 am

     Aren’t you running late for school? Maybe you’ll learn to do some elementary research there today.

     The post just returned a healthy $18m half-year profit for the period before it went to war with its workers. And it has signalled profits will be way down (probably non-existent, actually) as a result of its actions in the second half of the financial year.. The port’s actions have cost over $20m so far and counting. Permanent lost contracts might be $25m a year.

     All of this in an effort to transfer $6m of wealth from the workers (Auckland raterpayers) to the owners, Auckland Council. It doesn’t make any sense.
     • james 111 1.2.1

       5 April 2012 at 7:52 am

       Eddie thank you for totally justifying my position

       The Port has assets well over 200,000,000 18 million return on that assets base is less than 2%. Tauranga using the same measurement is 18%. Auckland Port isn’t performing and the profit doesn’t even cover cost of funds employed in the business
       • framu 1.2.1.1

         5 April 2012 at 8:10 am

         return on asset base?

         i was always taught that profit is income minus expenditure

         can you explain how this return based on asset base thing works? cause it sounds a bit voodoo economics to me
       • mickysavage 1.2.1.2

         5 April 2012 at 8:12 am

         Feck james.

         If you go over to the POAL website you can look up the latest financials and you will see that POAL has $721 million in assets and $320 million in liabilities.

         Where the feck did you get your figures? 
         • framu 1.2.1.2.1

           5 April 2012 at 8:18 am

           ” $721 million in assets and $320 million in liabilities”

           ahh – i think i get what james is on about now.
         • Draco T Bastard 1.2.1.2.2

           5 April 2012 at 12:58 pm

           Out of his arse and his sums were wrong as well. 18m/200m *2 (because of half-yearly result) = 18%
       • Psycho Milt 1.2.1.3

         5 April 2012 at 8:21 am

         He gets the figures from people like Matthew Hooton, who’s keen to get the port moved off that prime central Auckland real estate so it can be re-developed. Using a return on assets figure not only helps with propaganda claiming the port should be de-unionised or privatised as it’s barely profitable, it also highlights how much the real estate the port sits on is worth.

         To people who don’t have an obvious axe to grind, the port is generating a good profit.
         • shreddakj 1.2.1.3.1

           5 April 2012 at 10:58 am

           I thought the port land wasn’t actually worth much since it is reclaimed land and development possibilities are limited?
       • Eddie 1.2.1.4

         5 April 2012 at 8:27 am

         Jesus. Maybe it’s maths class you need to get to. 18m is 9% of 200m. And that’s a half year profit. Double it for annual return.
       • Eddie 1.2.1.5

         5 April 2012 at 8:28 am

         Jesus. Maybe it’s maths class you need to get to. 18m is 9% of 200m. And that’s a half year profit. Double it for annual return.

         Not sure you’re right on the port’s equity -what else have you been right on? – think it’s higher
   • IrishBill 1.3

     5 April 2012 at 7:42 am

     You should support this bill, jimmy. It would give you the chance to OIA the port to get some facts – you’re clearly in need of some.
   • framu 1.4

     5 April 2012 at 8:05 am

     “18% that the rate payers of Tauranga get.” – evidence? – cause that sounds pretty fantastical

     even hong kong only returns around 7%

     and james – you do realise that the port is currently run as a profit seeking company dont you?

     all this bill seeks to do is bring it under the OIA just like all other council owned entities.

     Why are you so anti shareholders knowing whats going on with their investment?
   • mikesh 1.5

     5 April 2012 at 8:18 am

     This is just a red herring. Whatever opinion one may hold about the port’s profitability and how it may be improved has no bearing on the question of public scrutiny. I would suggest that James111 stick to the topic.
2. Pete George 2

   5 April 2012 at 7:48 am

   Yes. it’s good to see ideas picked up from the wider community. But it’s premature to call for government support, I doubt they will consider their position unless the bill is drawn.
   • mickysavage 2.1

     5 April 2012 at 8:14 am

     Even for you Petey that comment was totally inane.  Of course the Government will oppose the bill.  They are totally against transparency and access to information.  And they would sell the Ports off in a whisker if they had a chance.
     • marsman 2.1.1

       5 April 2012 at 9:33 am

       They have already opposed the introduction of the Bill that’s why it’s gone into the ballot. See Darien Fenton’s post on Red Alert.
   • Pascal's bookie 2.2

     5 April 2012 at 8:28 am

     Why not?

     This seems like a bill that is sensible and resoundingly common-sensicle.

     Why shouldn’t Peter Dunne, for example, support it as a sign of his acceptance of good ideas up for discussion?
     • Pete George 2.2.1

       5 April 2012 at 9:05 am

       I’d guess that Peter Dunne would consider it on it’s merits if it get’s drawn from the ballot. He’s done it before, soon after the Mondayisation bill was drawn (a Labour bill) he indicated support.

       Whether he supports this one or not will depend on whether it has sufficient merit.

       If I was considering it I would start from the transparency angle as that’s an important priority, but would have to balance commercial interests against that. There’s a big difference between “organisations ranging from schools to public libraries” and competitive operations run as businesses.

       I wonder if Fenton would support similar levels of “transparency and accountability ” with unions.
       • Kotahi Tane Huna 2.2.1.1

         5 April 2012 at 9:14 am

         Do you think up these red herrings on your own, Pete? Unions are privately owned entities. What business do you have with their internal affairs? Transparent and accountable to their members, I should bloody well hope so, but to you, not so much.
         • Pascal's bookie 2.2.1.1.1

           5 April 2012 at 9:21 am

           “Do you think up these red herrings on your own, Pete?”

           Yeah, I’d say he does.
           • Pascal's bookie 2.2.1.1.1.1

             5 April 2012 at 9:45 am

             I am disappointed. It looks like he got the line from Whaleoil.
             • felix …

               5 April 2012 at 9:56 am

               Oh, at gotcha.co.nz?
             • Pete George …

               5 April 2012 at 10:07 am

               I beat Whale to it by half an hour, but he goes in to a lot more detail.

               Don’t unions at least owe it to their “private owners” to comply with statutory reporting requirements?
               • framu …

                 5 April 2012 at 10:19 am

                 what makes you think they dont?

                 and its memebrs not owners
                 • Pete George …

                   5 April 2012 at 10:37 am

                   Kotahi Tane Huna said “Unions are privately owned entities”, that did seem an odd way to describe them.

                   I’m sure some unions operate properly, but there’s documented examples of union alleged malpractice:

                   Inland Revenue is chasing unionist Matt McCarten’s Unite Support Services Ltd. for $150,750 in unpaid taxes after the department forced the company into liquidation last month.

                   http://www.thelawreport.co.nz/news/4268/ird-chasing-mccartens-unite-union-over-taxes-26-july-2011/
                   • framu …

                     5 April 2012 at 10:46 am

                     one story about unpaid tax – whoop-de-doo

                     doesnt change the fact that it has nothing to do with the topic
                   • Kotahi Tane Huna …

                     5 April 2012 at 10:55 am

                     Pete George. perhaps one day you will show me exactly how much public money goes into funding unions, not.

                     Even your pathetic attempt at diversion falls over, since the appointment of a liquidator will indeed see Unite Supports Services accounts opened up to external scrutiny. Inability to pay tax is not “malpractice” by the way, that’s just another example of you regurgitating the gutter water you swim in, a baseless smear just like the baseless smear you attempted yesterday and the day before that. No wonder you are completely unelectable – not only are you ignorant of basic governance (who can forget your thinking that Mallard and Little would seek public funds), but as you keep on reminding everyone after your convenient amnesia kicks in, nasty doesn’t win elections.

                     But really, what is the point of attempting to discuss the Port of Auckland or indeed, anything at all, with you, Pete George, when all you offer in return is a Gish gallop of weasel words and diversion?
                   • felix …

                     5 April 2012 at 10:58 am

                     I’m sure some middle-aged white men in the South Island are decent people, but there are documented examples of such people being involved in armed white-supremacist groups.

                     etc yawn.
               • bbfloyd …

                 5 April 2012 at 10:32 am

                 so “mondayisation” is as significant as bringing port companies under some kind of oversight?

                 i would suggest there is no relativity between the two…..

                 rather a pathetic defense of what has been an unedifying spectacle of self serving, craven, political chameleanism up to now….

                 pete knows as well, or better than most, that peter(useless shite) dunne would never have the spine to stand up to his hero’s over anything that was truly important….

                 i know people with iq’s barely above room temperature that argue over what dunny uses to wash the stain off his tongue regularly…..

                 clue: the word “dunny” is a pointer to what is the most popular guess…
               • Kotahi Tane Huna …

                 5 April 2012 at 10:41 am

                 So, now you’ve admitted you thought it up on your own, PG, what part of “red herring” don’t you understand? We are not discussing your silly notions about unions. We are discussing the requirement that the publicly owned Port of Auckland be legally transparent accountable to its owners, rather than to a tiny minority of right wing clowns.
       • Frida 2.2.1.2

         5 April 2012 at 2:35 pm

         Oh dear Pete George shows his lack of knowledge of Government yet again with another inane and nonsensical comment. Have you ever looked at the OIA Petey? More specifically, have you ever looked at the Schedules to the Ombudsmen Act where the entities subject to the OIA are listed. I think you’ll find that there are more than just “schools and libraries” which are subject to the OIA.
         Just to enlighten you because you’re probably too lazy to go and look it up. But Solid Energy (as one example) is an SOE that is clearly a commercial enterprise yet must comply with the OIA.
         Furthermore, “commercial sensitivity” is not even a reason per se to decline to disclose documents under the OIA. Relying on this reason must be balanced against the public interest in disclosure (the premise of the OIA).
         Thank goodness you never made it to Parliament, you clearly have no idea how Government works.
       • Idiot/Savant 2.2.1.3

         5 April 2012 at 3:31 pm

         If I was considering it I would start from the transparency angle as that’s an important priority, but would have to balance commercial interests against that. There’s a big difference between “organisations ranging from schools to public libraries” and competitive operations run as businesses.

         “competitive operations run as businesses” are already subject to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act by default, if they are majority council-owned. If you live in Christchurch, you can LGOIMA your local bus company. If you live in Dunedin, you can LGOIMA its forestry company, investment group, or the Tairei Gorge railway (its airport is already covered under the OIA). Why should ports be specifically excluded from that?

         (The reason is IMHO historical. The 4th Labour government expected all the ports to be rapidly sold, so it excluded them. Local councils had other plans. So we have council-owned assets which are excluded from public transparency)
3. mickysavage 3

   5 April 2012 at 7:52 am

   For the past few weeks I have been trying to get information out of POAL regarding the fiction that is the $91,000 average Stevedore wage.

   My original request for information from Auckland Council was then redirected to  ACIL.  Their response was that POAL was not subject to the Local Government Official Information obligations.

   I have since been directing the questions at ACIL.  The rationale is that surely ACIL would be asking these questions and it should therefore disclose the information.
   • DH 3.1

     5 April 2012 at 11:00 am

     I’m reasonable sure that the $91k is correct, it’s just not put in the proper context. The POAL release stated that the $91k was for average 49hr weeks which meant they were all doing significant overtime. They were being paid for 2548 hours each year when the standard 40hr week is only 2080hrs, not hard to rack up the $$ when you’re working regular overtime.
     • Colonial Viper 3.1.1

       5 April 2012 at 1:18 pm

       False cherry picked data. “All doing significant overtime” – what 100% of the workers on the wharfs, even the ones with significant family or external commitments???
       • DH 3.1.1.1

         5 April 2012 at 4:04 pm

         It looks to me to be more wilful misrepresentation than cherry picking, although they’re probably guilty of that too. When workers put in 10hrs overtime each week you’d expect them to take home a decent pay packet. They’ve distorted and misrepresented the figures to hide that the $91k is down to long hours (plus the extra in super payments etc).

         It wouldn’t surprise me if the average was 49hrs, when overtime is offered most of us are happy to take it for the extra bucks. If POAL really wanted to get that $91k down they should hire more workers & cut down on the overtime.
         • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1.1

           5 April 2012 at 10:10 pm

           If POAL really wanted to get that $91k down they should hire more workers & cut down on the overtime.

           What?! And have even more union members on site??? *puke*
4. DH 4

   5 April 2012 at 10:44 am

   This is good to see;

   Lee lashes out at Ports of Auckland ‘incompetency’

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10796780

   His comment about ACIL removing experienced POAL directors is interesting, hadn’t heard about that.

   I don’t know much about Mike Lee but I like the way he sticks up for his principles.
   • muzza 4.1

     5 April 2012 at 3:04 pm

     “Lee refused calls by councillors George Wood, Cameron Brewer and Dick Quax to withdraw and apologise for what they called “offensive remarks” and he called “fair and reasonable”

     What a shock, George Wood, Cameron Brewer and Dick Quax! Christine Fletcher must have been an apology!

     Well done Mike Lee for refusing to accept the snivelling calls of the councils shills (include Fletcher in that), from causing “offensive remarks. Who or what are they trying to feign offence on behalf of!
5. LoveIT 5

   5 April 2012 at 11:12 am

   OMGee! We’re like, O, so DETERMINED here.

   Yes, thats the word – determined.

   Determined to do what, exactly?

   Please tell me, my sides hurt.
6. Dr Terry 6

   5 April 2012 at 11:48 am

   Well, as usual the debate focussed all around Pete, how much he will enjoy it! How is it that he gets to so many? He must have some points to his favour in that so many rise to the bait!
7. james 111 7

   5 April 2012 at 1:11 pm

   Sorry have been away for a while you wanted some information on the 2.1% return this article from Bryan Gaynor really explains it well. POAL is getting hammered by POT
   As the accompanying figures show, POA has been hammered by POT in recent years: POA’s ebitda has fallen from $92.6 million in 2003 to $74.4 million, whereas POT’s has increased from $69.5 million to $95.0 million; POA’s ebitda margin has fallen from 55.3 per cent to 40.5 per cent while POT’s has increased from 47.6 per cent to 51.2 per cent; most importantly, POA’s dividend has declined from $34.5 million to $17.6 million while POT’s has increased from $22.8 million to $40.2 million.

   This is a huge concern to Auckland ratepayers as the $17.8 million POA dividend represents a return of only 2.1 per cent on POA’s $848 million 2005 takeover value.

   The biggest difference between the two companies is in terms of costs as they both have fairly similar total revenue, but POA has had total June 2011 year costs of $109.4 million compared with POT’s $90.3 million.

   This is where the argument about internal employees and outsourcing comes in, the issue at the heart of the current industrial dispute.

   In 2010, POA had total employee expenses of $51.9 million compared with only $18.5 million at POT and last year employee benefits plus pension costs were $54.9 million at POA compared with POT’s $25.3 million.

   The big difference between the two companies is in terms of contracting out.

   POA has 522 employees whereas POT has 160 permanent and 30 casual employees and, at any one time, a significant number of contractors working for it. These contractors are not included in the employee expenses quoted above.

   There is little doubt that the employees/contractors mix at POT works much better than the employees-only model at POA and it is not surprising that the current industrial dispute continues to escalate because POA and the Maritime Union have entrenched views on contracting.

   Contracting gives a port company greater ability to reduce costs when business is static or declining, as POT showed between 2003-07.

   But the poor performance of POA can also be attributed to the company’s board, management and politicians.

   The board’s capital management has been poor as dividend payouts have been too high. As a result, POA’s debt is much higher than POT’s and the former had net interest costs of $20.7 million in the June 2011 year compared with POT’s $10.6 million.

   POT’s senior management team has always been open, energetic and visionary while POA’s management team has been haughty and insular, and must take some of the blame for the company’s poor performance.

   Politicians have also interfered too much with POA. They have extracted too much cash in the form of dividends and this week Auckland Mayor Len Brown and former Auckland Regional Council head Mike Lee couldn’t resist having their say on the company.

   Lee made the ridiculous statement that POA and POT should act in an anti-competitive way by working together to get better rates from shipping companies. He went on to say that the shipping cartel Maersk and Fonterra “have kept prices right down by playing Tauranga off with Auckland” – yet Lee was primarily responsible for stopping merger talks between POA and POT.

   The politicians should stay out of the industrial dispute and leave POA and the Maritime Union to sort out their differences. However, the dispute looks like it will be long and ugly because Ports of Auckland must reduce its cost structure if it is to provide any competition to Port of Tauranga.
   • framu 7.1

     5 April 2012 at 1:31 pm

     “These contractors are not included in the employee expenses quoted above.”

     kind of raises many questions doesnt it

     so your saying they do it cheaper with less staff – but dont even notice the fact that “These contractors are not included in the employee expenses quoted above.”

     carry on
   • lprent 7.2

     5 April 2012 at 1:46 pm

     The big difference between the two companies is in terms of contracting out.

     Bullshit. The biggest differences are the scale of the operation, the direction of movement, the location, age of equipment, and strategic direction.

     PoT is a lot smaller in operation’s. Normally the majority of it’s traffic is export rather than the more balanced import/export loadings at PoAL with somewhat more imports than exports. PoT has a relatively shallow harbour which I suspect limits what traffic it can handle. For instance it is a lot faster to just load a vessel rather both than load and unload it.

     Each of these things affects the operations at the port and tends to make most of your actual minimal content about operations meaningless.

     Then you appear to have missed a whole pile of costs by concentrating solely on the PoT accounts. For instance are all of the labour costs listed as labour in the accounts? I’ll bet they aren’t because they are services hired from a contractor (you silly dork). Not to mention that the contractors may be directly providing the services to the shipping company and just using the ports facilities.

     When you are looking at EBITA and other such measures, the key thing to also look at is where the value is going. You can’t just compare two companies on the basis of numbers alone unless you look at their strategics.

     etc etc.

     Comparing apples with oranges is a bloody silly idea.

     In short, I’d suggest that you go and learn how to analyse balance sheets and P&L’s before you try telling a business grad such total superficial crap.

     Not to mention that Tauranga is way way past capacity, having to ration their capacity especially in Auckland, and having problems with empty containers just by even having the some of the overflow from Auckland due to the bloody stupid unlawful lockouts by PoAL. There are a hell of lot of reasons for having a port in Auckland. Not having to do the massively expensive shipping from Tauranga is one of them.

     Lee made the ridiculous statement that POA and POT should act in an anti-competitive way by working together to get better rates from shipping companies. He went on to say that the shipping cartel Maersk and Fonterra “have kept prices right down by playing Tauranga off with Auckland” – yet Lee was primarily responsible for stopping merger talks between POA and POT.

     You really are a fool aren’t you. The problem is that the shipping companies are allowed to collude in an anticompetitive way by legislation. The ports are not allowed to do so because they are subject to different legislation.

     Either both sides should be subject to the courts and the commerce commission or neither should. The current situation makes it easy for the shipping companies to do what ever they want playing one port against the other which is why they have managed to drive container costs down to close to half of the aussie ports where they are subject to anti-competitive legislation.

     Perhaps you should take some time to actually read what the issues are rather than just wanking in public.
   • KJT 7.3

     5 April 2012 at 2:05 pm

     Just shows James does not know what the fuck he is talking about.

     POAL has over 800 000 box moves annually as against 500 000 in Tauranga.
     Of course Auckland’s total costs will be more than Tauranga’s.

     Labour cost per box ARE CHEAPER IN AUCKLAND.

     Claiming Aucklands costs are greater while excluding costs of contractors in Tauranga is absolute garbage.

     That Auckland needs much better management is probably correct.

     The differences in standards of co-ordination, by management, between the two ports are obvious.

     Logistics and the value of waterfront land in Auckland means Aucklands accounting ROI could never equal Tauranga, even if Auckland became much more efficient.

     And allowing Mearsk to ratchet down port costs between Auckland and Tauranga does not benefit either port, or New Zealanders.
8. ad 8

   5 April 2012 at 1:17 pm

   The fastest route to accountability is to dissolve Auckland Council Investments Ltd, making the Ports of Auckland Company directly accountable to the Council.

   While there are minor tax disadvantages to doing this, the increase in democratic accountability would be stark.

   If the Council wanted to take that a step further, it could dissolve the Ports complany completely (since it is 100% owner) and simply turn the whole thing into a Council Department, like Stormwater or Parks.

   That would erase most of its entire corporate structure, but also increase political engagement/interference. The side benefit of dissolving the Company is that the asset could never be sold off, other than through the tortuous Special Consultative Procedure for such things.

   Whether there are the political numbers to do this, well, it would probably it would need another election. However none of the above requires any legislative change at all.
9. james 111 9

   5 April 2012 at 1:25 pm

   What I want to know is how come POT can do its volumes with 330 less staff than POA there are some real savings in Labour cost there alone.
   • mickysavage 9.1

     5 April 2012 at 1:40 pm

     James you are an idiot.  Tauranga has contractors too that are outside the list of employees.
      
     POAL in 2010 spent $51.9m on employees.  Tauranga spent $25.3m but a further $33,9m on contractors and $5.8m on transport contractors.  Depending on the work covered it looks like Tauranga spent MORE than Auckland on its Labour force.
      
     • KJT 9.1.1

       5 April 2012 at 2:09 pm

       It did.
     • james 111 9.1.2

       5 April 2012 at 2:20 pm

       Which is by far the most profitable port when all costs are recorded Tauranga by a country mile with less people on a full time basis.
10. james 111 10

    5 April 2012 at 1:51 pm

    What we are saying is then POA $24,900,000 profit / by 522 employees = $47,701 profit per employee
    Tauranga $57,900,000 / by 190 employees =$304,736 profit per employee given that the bottom line includes all operational labour costs if you were the employer which ownership model would you want to follow
    As Bryan Gaynor says the differences are so stark no one can argue with it not even you Micky . No not an idiot just go into things with my eyes wide open rather than a view tainted by ideaology
    • framu 10.1

      5 April 2012 at 1:58 pm

      “What we are saying is”

      no – your saying that. everyone one else is pointing out that youve got a big hole in your employee numbers

      from your own quote
      “POA has 522 employees whereas POT has 160 permanent and 30 casual employees and, at any one time, a significant number of contractors working for it. These contractors are not included in the employee expenses quoted above.”

      do you not read the replies or something?
      • james 111 10.1.1

        5 April 2012 at 2:03 pm

        Framu
        Doesnt matter profit is profit records all operating costs divided by the number of employees you cant argue with the figures. Tauranga is way more efficent and productive on a proft per person basis than POA
        • KJT 10.1.1.1

          5 April 2012 at 2:10 pm

          Don’t know where you studied accounting, but you should ask for your money back!
          • james 111 10.1.1.1.1

            5 April 2012 at 2:13 pm

            KJT
            Those are the profit results as reported divided by the Staff numbers given that in the Profit result all operational costs are recorded . Tell me what is wrong with the figures. I know they dont make happy reading for POAL or MUNZ
            • KJT 10.1.1.1.1.1

              5 April 2012 at 2:25 pm

              We have told you what is wrong with your figures. Sorry if that is too complicated for you.

              Whatever the profit difference. It is not due to the Labour force.

              Have a think about how much is due to land valuations for a start.
            • mickysavage 10.1.1.1.1.2

              5 April 2012 at 2:38 pm

              I can’t figure out if james is really that stupid or if he is just trying to disrupt the thread …
              • Te Reo Putake …

                5 April 2012 at 3:44 pm

                No, he really is that stupid. And it’s backed up by science; racists have an IQ that is, on average, 4 points lower than normal people. I’d suggest Jim Jim’s homophobia has shaved off a few more points, too.
                 
                In Simpsons’ terms, he’s somewhere between Ralph Wiggum and Cletus Spuckler.
              • felix …

                5 April 2012 at 3:45 pm

                Not necessarily an either or…
            • Draco T Bastard 10.1.1.1.1.3

              5 April 2012 at 3:46 pm

              Tell me what is wrong with the figures.

              It’s that you’re missing half of Tauranga’s costs and then saying that because those costs have suddenly disappeared (they haven’t really) that Tauranga gets more profit.
        • McFlock 10.1.1.2

          5 April 2012 at 2:13 pm

          You can’t honestly be that stupid.
                 
          Let’s say PoAL contracted out 400 of 500 staff with no change in efficiency – i.e. the 400 staff being paid directly simply move to another expense line item to perform the same amount of work. They would therefore have the same profit level on work being done by the same number of people. According to your logic, the 100 remaining employees are five times more efficient. Even they’re still only doing a fifth of the work that generates the profit.
               
          Seriously, not even you can plausibly pretend to be that dumb.
          • james 111 10.1.1.2.1

            5 April 2012 at 2:17 pm

            All the costs to hire the workers will have come off before the NOP line so the profit is still the profit. Costs of contracting are taken into account in the POT bottom line. You cant tell me they dont included them as that would be breaking all auditing standards and not reporting an accurate bottom line.
            • McFlock 10.1.1.2.1.1

              5 April 2012 at 2:49 pm

              But reducing the number of direct staff which you believe means “there are some real savings in Labour cost there alone.”. The trouble is that any “savings” in the labour cost line item are balanced by a corresponding increase in the “contracting out” line item. So the “profit per employee” metric is meaningless in this context – it’s just a filter to exclude counting staff based on an arbitrary line item label, rather than any difference in type or quality of work.
        • framu 10.1.1.3

          5 April 2012 at 2:17 pm

          no you cant argue with the figures your quite correct, im merely trying to point out that your figures are incorrect because your deliberately leaving out the contractors

          so the fact your not counting the contractors in your “profit per person” is bogus because your not counting all the people who have worked there.

          divide the profit of POT by ALL people who worked there – maybe some variables for hours worked and other such factors then come back with a profit per person
          • james 111 10.1.1.3.1

            5 April 2012 at 2:25 pm

            Right I agree with that but that isnt POT worry anymore they belong to the Contractor all the profit can be recorded against their full time numbers as the cost of the contractor is already alowed for in the expenses. How the contractor runs his business is entirely up to him. What I am talking about is the difference in profit and return to the rate payers between the two business models and it is huge
            • KJT 10.1.1.3.1.1

              5 April 2012 at 2:28 pm

              LOL
    • Craig Glen Eden 10.2

      5 April 2012 at 3:27 pm

      But james the figure 190 is not real get it! Divide what ever you like by a number thats not real and it makes the answer bullshit. James wake up. The individual numbers of contract workers would have to be added in to give any relevance to your argument.
11. ghostwhowalksnz 11

    5 April 2012 at 1:53 pm

    Telecom outsourced its entire IT division , along with employees, to EDS many years ago. Now its bought them back.

    Sub contracting isnt the be all by any means
12. Pete George 12

    5 April 2012 at 2:08 pm

    Fenton’s bill missed the ballot this time round.

    The ballot was held, and resulted in the following bills being drawn:

    22 Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill Hon Lianne Dalziel
    45 Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months Paid Leave) Amendment Bill Sue Moroney
    30 Lobbying Disclosure Bill Holly Walker

    Could be something worth supporting in amongst that.
    • james 111 12.1

      5 April 2012 at 2:11 pm

      Definetly not worth supporting the first two anyway.How could employer pay for six months maternity leave at the moment I ask you
      • Pete George 12.1.1

        5 April 2012 at 2:22 pm

        They don’t, it’s paid by Government.

        This Bill extends paid parental leave to 26 weeks, which supports the
        WHO recommendation that exclusive breastfeeding is recommended
        up to 6 months of age.

        The ability for parents to choose to care for newborn babies is an es-
        sential part of supporting families to develop nurturing relationships.
        Extending paid parental leave from the current entitlement of 14
        weeks to 26 weeks would support families and also create jobs
        across the economy as employers engage staf f to replace those on
        paid parental leave.

        As the majority of paid parental leave is uplifted by women, it has the
        added benefit of creating jobs in areas of the economy where women
        work, while supporting families and the well – being of children.

        This Bill recognises the fiscal implications of this additional entitle-
        ment, by staging the implementation of 26 weeks paid parental leave
        over the course of 3 years, adding an additional entitlement of 4
        weeks from 2012–2014.

        This sounds reasonable to me. There is likely to be fiscal resistance but it would phase in as the recovery kicks in (hopefully).
13. Pete George 13

    5 April 2012 at 2:33 pm

    Don’t know how practical it would be but on a principle of more transparency and open government this seems worth giving some attention to.

    Lobbying Disclosure Bill

    This bill seeks to bring a measure of transparency and public disclosure around the lobbying activity directed at Members of Parliament and their staff, and in so doing to enhance trust in the integrity and impartiality of democracy and political decision-making.

    It seeks to ensure that lobbying takes place in as open a way as possible, and in a way that protects the interests of the public, and to establish ethical standards for lobbying activity in New Zealand, with the prospect of sanctions if rules are broken.

    http://www.greens.org.nz/bills/lobbying-disclosure-bill

    If it could be made to work without being too restrictive then it could be good.
    • McFlock 13.1

      5 April 2012 at 2:59 pm

      how is “disclosure” restrictive?
           
      Personally I’d increase the penalty by a factor of at least ten.
14. captain hook 14

    5 April 2012 at 4:24 pm

    these kiwi soe’s seem to have become the repository for goon squads and “grabbers”.
15. RedBaron 15

    5 April 2012 at 9:19 pm

    Just read Jimmie3 at 1.11 p.m.

    Hahaha – I don’t believe that he analysed the Financials and wrote this in the few hours he had available.
    It’s the typical sort of crap written by accounts who are suddenly required to justify a decision that the Management has already taken. Contains a nod to the fact that there are other points of view but of course concentrates on those points where there is some specious rebuttal readily available.

    Come on Jimmie3. Cut and paste doesn’t take that long. Use ctrl C, ctrl V and please let us know -who did write this???
    • Colonial Viper 15.1

      5 April 2012 at 9:25 pm

      Looks to me like he got English’s office or Treasury to help him with those numbers, judging by the accuracy.
16. RedBaron 16

    5 April 2012 at 10:03 pm

    Had a quick look at the Financials – can’t see the staff numbers broken down there although there should be disclosure on the upper salaries. That has come from somewhere else, and they are set out fairly accurately.
    The other thing that caught my eye, was the exposure to derivatives and that appears to be around interest rates.
    They have little FX exposure which, unless they are making a major offshore purchase of equipment would be as expected, the price list would be in NZ dollars I suppose.

    However, the interest bill is around $0.5m but there seems to be derivatives in place of around $4.5m.
    I haven’t perused every thing in detail so there might be a simple explanation – if there isn’t then what are they expecting??
17. John72 17

    6 April 2012 at 12:22 pm

    Today’s readings :-
    Mark 15:10 – 15 Luke 23:18 – 25 John 19:12 – 16
    The crowds were just as irrational 2000 years ago as they are today. We like to think that we are more educated now, but no one needs a martyr to arouse the rabble in this day and age. I hope that no one participating in the P.of A. dispute considers themselves a martyr. Both parties keep refering to “what is in it for me.”

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS