The Roger Award event was held in Dunedin for the first time, on the night of February 19, 2004. The Award organisers – CAFCA and GATT Watchdog – were keen to hold it in Dunedin for two reasons: it is the only main centre not to have previously hosted the event, and to honour the leading role played from the outset, seven years ago, by its Mayor, Sukhi Turner. It also meant that the event returned to the South Island for the first time in four years.

Big thanks are due to the event organiser, Sam Huggard, and his hard working team. Roger and me were driven down on the day by Kane O’Connell, who was also our photographer at the event. It was the first time I’d been in Dunedin since my 1999 CAFCA speaking tour. It was a wet and cold night but the hardy southerners weren’t deterred by that. Sam’s team had prepared a feast, which was gratefully devoured by the 50+ people in attendance. The programme was less elaborate than the previous three events (in Auckland and Wellington) but very much to the point. Music was provided by Justin Wilson, Manea Tekii and Reitu Cassidy; a particularly pertinent segment was screened of Alister Barry’s seminal early 1990s’ documentary "Someone Else’s Country" (even more appropriate because Alister was one of the judges). I spoke on behalf of the organisers and Dunedin-based Green MP Metiria Turei was the concluding speaker.

But the undoubted star of the show was Mayor Sukhi, who spoke on behalf of the judges, and announced the winners. She looked nonplussed when I told her ten minutes was her speaking time. She was having none of that: "There’s very important stuff in here (the Judges’ Report)" and she proceeded to speak for nearly an hour. And did she get stuck in! Not only did she emphasise all the damning points made in the Report, but frequently departed from that text to add her own personal observations. "I keep on being accused of being anti-business. If you repeat something often enough, it becomes the truth. Would someone who is pro-business like to support these companies? You ask yourself. Businesses should be open to criticism, because we are at the (Dunedin) City Council. We are saying we want to expose those businesses who want to come to New Zealand and oppress our workers" (Press, 21/2/04; "Roger to Juken Nissho", Paul Gorman). Sukhi defined herself as not anti-business but anti-bad business. She very pointedly addressed her remarks to the Press and Otago Daily Times journalists present. "Later the Mayor said she would be interested to see what the headlines were in the papers tomorrow: ‘Sukhi Turner anti-business’?" (ibid).

People often ask us if the Roger Award has any effect, does anyone take any notice? The named and shamed transnational corporations (TNCs) certainly do. Every year we have been contacted by aggrieved finalists/winners and/or their public relations mouthpieces, trying to persuade us why they are actually good guys. This time was no exception. After the event, the organiser and judges received a glossy booklet from BAT and a letter from the PR flak about the company’s "corporate social responsibility". The letter began: "In light of having the dubious distinction of being awarded second place in this year’s Roger Award, we would like to take this opportunity to discuss how we are tackling the concerns associated with the manufacture and sale of tobacco products". So, isn’t that nice. Their product kills several thousand New Zealanders every year, but they do it "responsibly". We agree, they are fully responsible, but not in their meaning of the word.

We also got a letter from the Corporate Communications Manager of Carter Holt Harvey. Unlike the BAT mouthpiece she had obviously read at least part of the Judges’ Report and wrote to dispute several parts of it. She concluded: "I appreciate that the Roger Award precedes (sic) from a distinctive view of the world, and the role of larger companies in it. However, if you have another occasion to write about Carter Holt Harvey, you are welcome to ask us to check the veracity of your facts". We’ll bear it in mind.

The most telling response was that I got a call from the Japanese Embassy (as soon as they read that a Japanese TNC had won the Roger, for the first time, in the Dominion Post). The first six Awards were won by North American TNCs – Tranz Rail, Monsanto, TransAlta, Carter Holt Harvey. We were never once contacted by any embassy, so this was a first. The hapless economic adviser who rang me had a whole list of prepared questions that she had been instructed to ask me, mainly about our processes as organisers, the judges’ processes in selecting the winners (we wouldn’t have a clue, because the organisers strictly leave the judges alone to get on with it), how long had the Mayor of Dunedin been involved, and, the key question, does the Overseas Investment Commission (OIC) take the Roger Award into consideration when approving or declining foreign investment applications? We’d love to know the answer to that and have asked the OIC to enlighten both the Embassy and us.

We also wrote to Dr Cullen (as Minister of Finance he is in charge of the OIC): "We believe that, in light of the Government’s current review of the Overseas Investment Act and the entire foreign investment regime, this Report (plus its predecessors) should be essential reading for all Ministers and officials involved in the review. It shows exactly the calibre of the transnational corporations attracted to New Zealand by our laissez faire foreign investment regime.

"If more official attention was paid to the reality of foreign investment in this country, rather than to Economics 1 textbook theories, then the Government’s review could only result in a significant tightening up of that regime…We believe that it should be mandatory for the OIC to (take the Roger Award into consideration), and urge that you, as Minister in charge of the OIC, issue written instructions to that effect. Please be sure to supply us a copy when you do so.." . This was too much for one of the business columnists at the New Zealand Herald, who started his article thus: "The rabble rousing Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa is upping its agitating activity" (16/3/04). The writer said that he looked forward to Cullen’s "no doubt witty" reply.

Sorry to disappoint the Herald but Cullen’s reply (1/4/04) was serious and almost conciliatory: "I can assure you that all those involved in the Review are taking into account a wide variety of viewpoints, including those of your organisation. I understand that Treasury has met with Bill Rosenberg and discussed the views of CAFCA" (correct. Ed.). It is worth noting that overseas and domestically owned companies operating in New Zealand are all required to comply with New Zealand laws and regulations. The issues raised by the Roger Award are not specific to the nationality of the company. While the safety record of Juken Nissho is disappointing (that’s putting it very mildly indeed. Ed.), this company is subject to the same legal obligations and penalties for non-compliance as a New Zealand owned company. The Government would be interested in any suggestions you may have that would improve the regulation of all companies, both domestic and overseas owned". We may very well take Cullen up on his invitation. As for his substantive response, we reiterate that we carry no flag for New Zealand capitalists. But there is a striking difference of size and scale between them and the TNCs. Which is why we concentrate on the dog rather than the fleas.