2004 Roger Award
Pisses Off TNCs We Must Be Doing Something Right - by Murray Horton For the first time since 2000, the event to announce the annual Roger Award for the Worst Transnational Corporation Operating in Aotearoa/New Zealand in 2004 was held in Christchurch (having been previously held in Dunedin, Auckland and Wellington). The organisers, CAFCA and GATT Watchdog, co-hosted this glittering social occasion, which was held in May. I was the MC; Bill Rosenberg was the keynote speaker, talking about the Overseas Investment Bill (see the cover story in this issue); we brought the chief judge, John Minto, down from Auckland, to announce the winner(s); and Sue Newberry, who is well known to Watchdog readers, and who was then an Accountancy lecturer at the University of Canterbury (she’s now at the University of Sydney) expounded on her Financial Analysis of the winner, Telecom, complete with PowerPoint presentation. The event also featured the premiere of a 20 minute semi-edited preview of "The Last Resort", a documentary in the making, by Wellington filmmakers Errol Wright and Abi King-Jones, who came down for the evening. It is about the sale of rural land, largely but not exclusively, to foreigners and features interviews with Bill Rosenberg and myself (among many others). Simon Ritchie of Christchurch (he’s actually our next door neighbour) wrote and performed a song for the event (see the box for the lyrics). More than 80 people attended the event, the Press sent along a photographer (which meant that Roger itself made its first ever appearance in the mainstream media, in all its repellent glory) and a very good time was had by all. The Roger Award has been running since 1997 and every year it gets better and better. It has become an established part of the New Zealand political and economic landscape. The media takes it seriously, reporting the judges’ decisions extensively in newspapers and radio networks throughout the country. What was most encouraging about the media coverage this time was that it didn’t simply regurgitate the press release that I put out announcing the winner(s). In fact, that was hardly quoted at all. The media actually did some hard work and ploughed through the full Judges’ Report and quoted from that. That Report was sent out with Watchdog 108 (April 2005) and can be read online at www.cafca.org.nz (follow the Links to the Roger Award page, where there is a wealth of material). People sometime ask us if the Roger Award makes any difference, do the intended targets of it take any notice? The answer to that is an unequivocal yes. Ever since it started, the transnational corporations (TNCs) and their public relations mouthpieces have taken notice of it, before, during and after the announcement of the annual winner(s). The 2004 Award was no different. Contact Energy, which was the runner up, was in touch with the judges and organisers as soon as it was named as a finalist, and protested vigorously after the result was announced. Westpac, which was a finalist but didn’t win anything, sent us a furious e-mail protesting that it shouldn’t have been there at all. "When you remove the factual inaccuracies about Westpac, what’s left is just moderately emotive, generic banking industry commentary" (e-mail to CAFCA, 3/5/05. See the article elsewhere in this issue for more up to date details of Westpac’s misdeeds). Jim Anderton Needs A New Songwriter But this time there was a new and unique component. We got our first ever approach from a politician, writing in support of one of the winners (Malaysian forestry TNC, Ernslaw One, which came third.). Not just any old obscure backbencher, either. Our correspondent was none other than Jim Anderton, who wrote in his triple capacity as Minister, MP and Leader of the Progressives. "I see that the company Ernslaw One features in your most recent Roger Awards on the basis that it had been the source of a large number of job losses on the East Coast, and for reasons of health and safety regarding their sawmilling complex at Whangapoua. I don't mind a bit of political knockabout and I have always been mildly amused by these satirical awards, but in this case you have made a serious error. Neither of these accusations is correct. In fact when Ernslaw One purchased the Prime Sawmill in Gisborne, in October 2004, they committed themselves to a fourfold increase in processed logs, and the creation of an extra 30 to 40 jobs as this expansion occurs. You appear to have confused Ernslaw with the Chinese company Huaguang, the collapse of which would have led to significant job losses if Ernslaw had not bought the cutting rights to the East Coast forests from them. Ernslaw employs seven gangs on the East Coast who now enjoy much better job security as a result of their intervention. Far from deserving criticism the company should be commended for this. "Your information relating to the mill at Whangapoua is also incorrect. There is currently an appeal before the Environment Court relating to this operation, but for the record, the company is not using chemicals as alleged, and having the mill inside the forest means that the environmental impact has been significantly reduced with less visible impact and fewer logging trucks on main public roads. How you respond to this letter is up to you, but it seems to me, in all fairness, that you should issue a public withdrawal of your unsustainable allegations against a company which is actually doing a good job for New Zealand workers" (letter to CAFCA, 12/5/05). There's nothing "unsustainable" and they're not "allegations". The Roger judges don’t make their decisions based on hearsay or their personal opinions but, like all judges, on the basis of the evidence presented to them. For several years now, Watchdog has been reporting the campaign waged against the proposed sawmill by the Whangapoua Environmental Protection Society (WEPS), and their impeccably researched material constituted a lot of that evidence.This would just mark another chapter in the sad decline of Jim Anderton, not worthy of comment, if it wasn't for a startling coincidence that I happened to notice when I read Jim's letter alongside the Gisborne Herald story (3/5/05, "Attack on Ernslaw One 'grossly unfair'") quoting the company's managing director, Thomas Song. It was then that I realised that, in places, Song and Anderton, were word for word. Song: "Information relating to the proposed Coromandel mill was also incorrect. This was now subject of an appeal in the Environment Court. The company was not using chemicals, and having the mill inside a forest meant there would be less visible impact and fewer logging trucks on main roads...". Anderton: "...Your information relating to the mill at Whangapoua is also incorrect. There is currently an appeal before the Environment Court relating to this operation, but for the record, the company is not using chemicals as alleged, and having the mill inside the forest means that the environmental impact has been significantly reduced with less visible impact and fewer logging trucks on main public roads...". Our advice to Jim is, get a new letter writer. Or should that be, Songwriter? What a pity that Jim couldn't leave Ernslaw One to do its own dirty work. And, "for the record", the Coromandel campaigners confirm that the company had applied to use highly toxic fungicides; the mill would not have been situated in the forest but on a farm bought for the purpose; the mill would have increased traffic on the Whangapoua hill road, which has no passing bays, by seven times; and would have caused such vibrations at the Te Rerenga School that the only solution suggested by the Thames Coromandel District Council was to shift the school.Environment Court Blows Sawmill Proposal Out Of the Water The last word on all this was delivered by the Environment Court, in July 2005, when it stopped the sawmill proposal dead in its tracks by deciding that it should not proceed (see the article about this elsewhere in this issue for the details). WEPS was totally jubilant, as they were fully entitled to be. Victories by the "little people" over the TNCs are few enough for them to be savoured. The company pronounced itself astonished by the decision; from Jim Anderton, there wasn’t a peep. We’d like to think that the Roger Award played a small part in focusing attention on this appalling project, which, hopefully, has now been sunk for good. Meanwhile, Roger goes rolling along. Nominations are now open for the 2005 Award (the form is enclosed with this Watchdog and can also be found at our Website), the judges have been named, the winner(s) will be announced at an event in Auckland in the first few months of 2006. So, please send us your nominations and help us to publicise the Award and distribute the nomination forms as widely as possible. The New Zealand public has taken the Roger Award to its heart and we want as many as possible of them to have their say in who is the biggest TNC bastard of the year. Non-Members:
|
 Return to Watchdog 109 Index |
 |