Monthly Archives: November 2017

Building owners on shaky ground with new legislation

Posted on by
Reply

Due to the new earthquake-prone building legislation, building owners across the country could be facing a mandatory structural assessment to determine whether or not their buildings are earthquake prone.

No longer will owners of older buildings be able to postpone structural assessments as the new legislation gives clear guidelines on time frames. Local councils are required to assess their building stocks to determine if they consider a building to be potentially earthquake prone based on a set of assessment parameters, such as age, building material, location and size. Once a letter of notification is received, owners will have 12 months to engage a structural engineer to undertake an assessment.

Hastings District Council has indicated they will start sending out letters in 2018. Napier City, Wairoa District and Central Hawke’s Bay councils have yet to confirm time frames but they too have a deadline of 2022 to complete their reviews.

Gerard van Veen of Hastings District Council has stated that the new profiling rules effectively reduced the number of potentially earthquake-prone buildings in Hastings compared to the old policies. “Initial estimates identified 1,200 buildings, which has now reduced considerably under the new legislation.”

Strata Group director Guy Lethbridge has been involved in seismic assessments and upgrades since the 2007 Gisborne earthquake and says the extended time frames for the council profiling, structural assessments and even the 7.5-to-15-year time frames to upgrade reflect the pressure the new policies will put on the councils and the engineering and construction industry.

“In an already busy construction environment, getting through the volume of expected assessments will be challenging.”

With tenants now more aware of building rating, it is rare for landlords of older buildings not to be asked for an indication of building strength.

“National franchises have already set minimum thresholds for buildings they currently or intend to occupy, so knowing your building strength will become a landlord expectation.”

The assessments are required to report the existing building strength as a percentage of an identical building constructed to modern day standards. Any building with an outcome of less than 34% is likely to be rated as earthquake prone and will require strengthening to achieve an outcome of greater than 34% NBS.

“While a strength outcome of, say, 35% will deem the building not earthquake prone, tenants are typically targeting a higher threshold of 67% NBS.”

The new legislation, Building (Earthquake- prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016, came into effect on 1 July 2017 and with it came extensive criteria of what a Detailed Seismic Assessment (DSA) report must cover.

“The new reporting structure means more consistency in evaluating and reporting earthquake-prone buildings. In the past, engineers have been criticised for a spread of assessment outcomes on the same building and it is hoped that under the new regime, this range of outcomes will be reduced.”

The Act states that councils will be required to identify priority buildings such as schools, hospitals and emergency response buildings by 1 January 2020 and if assessed as earthquake prone, then any improvements must be carried out within 7.5 years. All other buildings, such as commercial buildings, are to be identified by 1 July 2022 and rectified within 15 years. Residential buildings are not included in the assessment criteria.

Guy says most of the post-1931 earthquake Art Deco buildings in Hawke’s Bay will contain unreinforced masonry and owners of these buildings should expect a letter from council.

“We would encourage building owners to do their own assessment based on the profiling parameters. If you are unsure then contact your council or an engineer for advice.

“In our experience, many building owners have not taken the news that their asset will require capital investment well; however, once the reality has set in that an upgrade is mandatory then they take a fresh new look at the building.

“Many of the older building stock are no longer fit for purpose and finding new tenants is difficult. By incorporating some layout changes and external facelift work as part of the upgrade, the building will stand out from its neighbour. We work with our clients to get the building ready for market.”

Strata Group has been involved in assessments across the East Cape and has observed that the Napier and Hastings building stock is better than the surrounding districts.

“The 1931 earthquake and subsequent fire destroyed many of the older buildings in Hawke’s Bay and the replacement buildings were of a higher standard. Buildings in other areas still have pre-1931 building stock, which generally result in lower strength outcomes.”

The 20-strong Strata Group team has already completed a large number of building assessments, both under the previous Act and now under the new amendment. Strata Group has assessed buildings such as the Hawke’s Bay Opera House, which is currently undergoing strengthening, as well as Napier’s Civic Administration and Library buildings.

“These high-profile cases have prompted a great deal of debate around true risk and perceived risk. The Building Act has given engineers an assessment benchmark, an assessment process and specific reporting parameters. We hope the public don’t shoot the messengers if the news isn’t good.”

Guy says building owners who don’t know the strength of their buildings potentially reduce options around sale and purchase, refinancing, tenant lease negotiations, insurance premiums and general peace of mind.

“We appreciate that potential unforecasted costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars to upgrade your building is a bitter pill to swallow, but the option to bury your head in the sand is no longer available.”

Guy’s parting advice is that building owners who think their building will be profiled as potentially earthquake prone should talk to a local structural engineer and get an indication of time and costs of an assessment. The risk of not doing this is you may be at the end of the queue and that could present a risk of losing your tenant.

www.sratagroup.net.nz

Addressing partner misalignment

Posted on by
Reply

Whether you want to grow, to retain market share or even explore exit options, it’s important that you have a good idea of what’s going on in your business now.

Sometimes this can be difficult when you have more than one stakeholder, as is the case with many small to medium sized businesses with multiple owners.

Certainly, it is important to have different skills and ideas in business – but these need to eventually come together if you want to move forward. If your business is suffering from misalignment, it’s going to be difficult to achieve the goals you’ve set.

Over the years, we’ve seen a lot of businesses striving to move forward. Generally we have found that the business owners acknowledge that they will need a plan. They have all the information available, but they don’t have time to look at where their business is currently sitting, let alone react to it.

A lot of issues with the business are generally known issues but remain unresolved because one of the most important things they don’t find time to do is come together to strategise.

At a more fundamental level this is about a misalignment of core values, the elements that form the foundation of a business’ vision, identity, culture and brand, and underpin all decision-making.

One of the first steps to moving forward is gauging the degree of alignment amongst your different partners on key issues. The idea is that once these have been laid out on the table, you’ll be able to have a real discussion and eventually come to resolutions on how to move forward.

So how to measure alignment when you’re already challenged in finding time to come together?

And, for those business that don’t have their own existing board structure, getting access to independent expert advice to facilitate that process can be very difficult.

Which is where a simple diagnostic questionnaire can be useful. We’ve developed such a questionnaire based on our many years’ experience working alongside owner-managed Small Businesses and have put it into a Business Review package.

There’s a short diagnostic questionnaire and a longer one that takes around an hour which really drills down into the nitty-gritty of your business. The questionnaire will work best if each stakeholder does it independently, and from there, the key issues currently facing your business become evident – and the degree of alignment on each one.

That feeds into a diagnostic report. The areas of pressure could be anything from tax, wanting to sell, not making enough money, not getting on with your fellow partners, having no succession plan, disagreement over investments in new technology – the list goes on.

The important thing about this process isn’t just getting a report, but working on a very targeted solution.

I can cite two cases of businesses that have been through this process. One was a medium-sized business operating in the IT space. They had two shareholders, one minority and the other majority, but there was serious misalignment on who their target market actually was. The Business Review program was used to agree on a target market (in this case they decided there were more than enough consumers in New Zealand and so stopped chasing deals in Australia) and since then they’ve gone from strength to strength.

The other case involved a husband and wife partnership. The program helped them realise that they wanted to leave the business, so had to make sure it could still run without them. We helped them to clarify which parts of the business needed work and so their exit strategy was successful.

Ultimately, it comes down to the age-old issue of too much working in the business not enough on the business – a self-replicating cycle that’s magnified when multiple partners are involved.

The reality is that the solutions can be easy once the issues are diagnosed. Particularly with the wealth of digital tools we have that facilitate real- time business information and communication.

Changing buyers bring changing values

Posted on by
Reply

The ‘leaky homes crisis’ is an ongoing construction and legal predicament in New Zealand. A perfect storm of trending building design features and the use of untreated timber culminated in many homes built between 1994 -2004 that suffered from weather-tightness problems. Hawke’s Bay has its share of homes built in this era but to date there has been relatively little impact on the value of these homes when they have come to sell.

There are many reasons why homes from this era were leaky. A major one was the increase in the use of cladding systems such as fibre cement sheet and EIPS1, more commonly known as monolithic cladding, that relied on a paint finish as the primary defence against water ingress. Such cladding systems allowed for little construction or thermal movement so that fine cracks that appeared insignificant, and would have been relatively insignificant in traditional claddings such as weatherboard, allowed continuous ingress of moisture into the framing which were ideal for rot. A further exacerbating factor was the change to the New Zealand Standard for Timber Treatment in 1995, allowing the use of untreated Pinus radiata timber for wall framing. As this timber has little natural resistance to rot when wet, damage occurs more quickly.

Hence, nearly a decade on it appears there continues to be a stigma associated with homes built in this era, especially if they display cladding and design features associated with weather tightness issues. Therefore, any home with a monolithic cladding became a red flag for buyers, especially in the bigger city property markets. We are beginning to see this stigma shift to Hawkes Bay homes built in this era as we see more buyers from out of town enter the local property market, irrespective of any weather tightness issues or their actual condition. Not only has our office had this experience, we have also had feedback from Real Estate Agents who confirm that over the past 18 months it has become increasingly difficult to sell property with this cladding type. Furthermore, it is having a definite impact on the consideration vendors are receiving. However, how much of an impact remains to be quantified?

In late 2016 researchers2 from Massey University released a paper entitled Leaky Building Stigma: Can it be Eliminated by Remediation. The purpose of the study was to examine whether meeting the regulatory standards for remediation work eliminated the negative stigma effect on remediated properties or whether the stigma remained. The study’s findings indicated that for monolithic- clad dwellings, the price discount due to leaky building stigma is significant. Depending on the severity of the leaking problems, there is about 11% reduction of value, on average, for general market stigma and an additional 5% -10% for post-remediation stigma.

Earlier this year, our office valued a home with a monolithic cladding system. There were no signs of the home leaking, however (in a strong market) the home sold for 11.26% below our valuation. As a Trustee I am also involved in a sale of a property with a monolithic cladding system. The house has not sold yet and is not leaking but certainly carries the stigma of such. We have had two contracts fall over due to outside advisors strongly recommending their clients seek a home with a different cladding type. Based on both offers to date it would suggest a 9.5% reduction on valuation however this may yet be greater as the home has not sold yet. Therefore, the above research may prove to be relatively accurate in its estimates of value discounts.

Whilst Hawke’s Bay has had its share of properties affected by the ‘leaky home’ syndrome, it has not been on the same scale as that of other cities, especially Auckland. It remains to be seen if our out of town buyers will continue to influence the perceived stigma of homes built in this era on our local property values.

  1. Externally Insulated Plaster System
  2. Song Shi, Iona McCarthy, Uyen Mai

Where there’s a will, there’s a way

Posted on by
Reply

On death a person’s assets form their “estate” which is subject to the wishes or intentions of the deceased’s Will or if they do not have a Will by the “rules on intestacy.”

While many would acknowledge that they should have an up-to-date Will, it is surprising how many people do not have a current Will or one at all.

Regularly reviewing your Will is as important as initially making one to ensure that your Will reflects your current circumstances and any changes in your life such as the death of a close family member, the creation of a trust or establishment or entry into your own business.

Some matters to consider when creating or reviewing a Will are:

1. Identity of your Executors and Trustees. Who would you like to administer your estate or are those currently selected still appropriate?

2. Funeral directions. Do you wish to make such directions or change any existing directions?

3. Changes in your personal circumstances. Unless your Will was made in contemplation of marriage then any Will you have will be automatically revoked when you marry.

You also need to consider your Will if your relationship ends. If you separate with the intention of ending the marriage, provisions in your Will relating to your spouse will remain valid until the marriage is legally dissolved (that is, you are divorced), only then the gifts are null and void.

4. Changes in assets and liabilities. For example, if you have acquired a new asset, such as a business, then you may wish to give the business (or the shares) to a specific person. If you don’t make a specific direction then (if you have a Will) it will simply form part of your estate and go to the beneficiaries.

5. Changes to your family. If you have had children then you may wish to appoint a testamentary guardian.

6. Death of a family member or beneficiary. For obvious reasons this may necessitate a change to your Will.

7. Setting up a family trust. If you have or have set up a family trust you will need to ensure that your Will reflects this and (if appropriate) refers to it.

8. Gifts to charities or organisations. You may wish to leave money to a favourite charity or organisation.

9. Specific gifts. If you want to leave an important item such as jewellery or a family heirloom to a particular person then this should be specified in your Will.

If you die “intestate”, i.e. without a Will, then your estate is subject to the “rules on intestacy” which prescribes to whom, and in what proportions, your estate will be distributed, which may not reflect your wishes.

To help illustrate the point, let’s consider an example:

John and Jane are married, with a son and two daughters. John and Jane have a jointly owned home and a joint bank account. John also has his own construction company. John’s son, James, operates the business with him and it is John’s wish for James to take over the business from him when he retires.

John dies unexpectedly and he does not have a Will.

The home and bank account will pass to Jane by survivorship, however the business will fall into John’s estate and be governed by the “rules on intestacy”.

The business is valued at $515,000.00.

Jane will receive all of John’s personal possessions (basically everything other than land, buildings and money) and shares valued to $275,000.00, which is made up of:

• The legally prescribed set amount of $155,000.00; and

• A 1/3 of the balance of the estate of $120,000.00.

James and his two sisters will each receive shares valued to $80,000.00 (being the other two thirds of the balance of the estate).

This does not reflect John’s wish to pass the business to James and in addition leaves control of the business to Jane (53.39%) while James (and his two sisters) would only have 15.53% each. Significantly James would only be a minority shareholder and would not be able to prevent the business being sold by his mother and sisters.

Finally, another advantage to having a Will is that it usually costs more and takes longer to administer an intestate person’s estate.

If you do not have a Will or have not reviewed your Will for several years then I advise that you discuss this with your lawyer sooner rather than later.

Are You a Good Leader?

Posted on by
Reply

If you are a business owner or manager you are responsible for leading others in pursuit of the organisation’s success. Whether it’s a small business with a few employees or a large entity with multiple divisions, if you are the leader of a team you are having an impact on a daily basis by what you do, or don’t do. I rather like this quote; “All leaders lead by example…. whether they intend to or not.” (Source Unknown)

It’s important for leaders to take time out occasionally to reflect on how well they are doing at being the boss. In a large organisation there is generally data and processes available to help with this. There are likely to be higher levels of management or a board of directors that will go through a structured performance review process with you that also requires some personal reflection.

This may also include some 360 degree feedback from peers and staff that provide you with insights about your leadership. There may be periodic staff engagement surveys that provide feedback about aspects of leadership. You may have access to turnover data, exit interviews and other useful indicators of the effectiveness of your people management and it is paramount that you use these information sources to mould your leadership approach.

Contrastingly, in a small business you probably won’t have the types of processes in place that a large entity typically would and it’s likely you will have less opportunity for reflection as small business owners are often busy with operations, marketing, finance, HR and all the things small business owners need to do. So how can you get some insights to develop your leadership skills?

  • If you have performance reviews for your staff use the opportunity for 2-way feedback and ask about what you can do more of or less of to help them in their work.
  • Consider using a business mentor as a sounding board about your leadership style and to provide suggestions for

    improvement and contribute ideas to help you through challenging situations. Just having these conversations makes you reflect on how you are doing.

  • Try to fit in some learning opportunities for yourself to get inspired, be exposed to new ideas, keep up to date with emerging trends, or learn from the experience of others. Training and ongoing development is just as important for leaders as for your staff. This could be a seminar, conference, academic course, on-line learning, or speakers at local business events.
  • Endeavour to set aside time for personal reflection. What is it that your staff have been telling you? What tasks do you need to follow up on in order to provide your team with sound leadership and ensure they feel valued and listened to?

When you are able to set aside some time for personal reflection regarding your leadership and the productivity of your team try some of the tips above of some of the things a good leader provides, adapted from an article by Jeff Haden, entrepreneur and author. Consider how you are performing in these areas – there may be one or more aspects that you could consciously plan to do more of, changes you could easily implement, or even ‘big picture’ elements you may want to think further on to have a positive impact on the people working for you.

Android or Apple?

Posted on by
Reply

For the un-initiated Android and Apple are both operating systems that are leaders in mobile phone, tablet and PC operating Systems.

Android is now owned by Google and has been the market leader in the mobile phone space for a long time and continues to rise. Its market leadership is larger due to range and price of devices rather than being better or worse than Apple.

Apple is well known and its founder Steve Jobs has been called revolutionary. He has brought to market some outstanding innovations, none more revolutionary than the Ipod. But Apple has struggled to push the envelope since his death and some have seen this as the end of Apple… I’m not so sure.

From an individual user’s perspective does it really matter what OS you use?

I must confess at this point I am un-ashamedly an Android user with Apple always following behind the flagship Samsung models. But things have changed, the phones really can’t do much more than they do now. The iPhone 8 does look like its caught up to the Samsung 8 (excluding face recognition) in feature and design.

Looking at the best option, Apple has always touted its security and application development as a serious point of difference. Android has always had the freedom to push the envelope in phone features and design particularly with its open source environment. I think we are at the point, certainly in mobile phone features, of being at the peak and only incremental changes are likely going forward.

What is really the best OS?

For me this means considering true mobility. Mobility is ultimately the freedom to do what we want to do anywhere we want without the constraints of traditional desktop.

If we take a step back, Android was created to be open source and that meant it grew faster than any other OS, it meant it could be rolled out and deployed on multiple device manufacturers free of charge. This is where Android for some was a free spirit and a symbol of all that was right and true about the internet. Many manufacturers jumped on board and offered options across all mobility devices.

Apple on the other hand was slow to keep pace and that was due to the control Apple put in place to be part of the Apple eco-system. But this meant that as a rule, things sort of worked first time with Apple as opposed to Android. One example might be Apple TV.

I have Chromecast on a couple of devices and if used frequently it works really well. It is wireless, discreet (hide in a USB port behind the TV) and I see this as a big advantage over Apple. But I have found that the less it is used the more I have to reset and reconfigure. My experience with Apple TV though has been seamless. Plug it in and away you go, also it works really well when doing presentations. Android does run on a number of plug and play devices but you need to know what your doing. Don’t get me wrong, Android can do what Apple can do except it just isn’t as easy for your average user.

So I think Apple win, this in part because they do everything for you. It is easier for them because they don’t have the multiple devices and systems that Android have so they can deploy so much easier than Android. They have a good robust Device Management System for deploying devices throughout a workforce and updates can be pushed out across the workforce.

They also invest significantly in partner programs upskilling their partners on the key benefits of Apple. This isn’t something Android hasn’t done and probably never will due to its open source architecture.

So the advantage is a much better informed partner channel and support networks. This is very important to business as it directly reduces downtime and associated costs. It also means the applications recommended do tend to work well and are relevant to your industry.

A final point to consider is Google and Android probably know more about you than anyone through the data they collect. They use this to further enhance customer experience and while I don’t get concerned with this for some it really is an issue. Apple on the other hand don’t share your information and they don’t capture the same amount of data like Google because they use their own browser and maps.

The main advantage though for Android is its cost to deploy because you have a huge range of devices to choose from at all price points and this can be hard to beat. If you have a larger workforce it becomes difficult to argue for Apple particularly if your deployment is in a harsh working environment (due to the frequent replacement of devices).

So my call at the moment as I sit here with an iPad and Samsung S8 is that Apple appears better.

Of course, this is only my view and yours may differ but I’m going to try and go completely mobile with Apple over the next little while to test this hypothesis, see if I can really drive my business from the Apple ecosystem through mobility devices and applications.

I will keep you posted.

Working together is a better solution

Posted on by
Reply

Water Conservation Orders (WCO’s) are mechanisms under the Resource Management Act designed to recognise and protect outstanding values of particular bodies of water. Commonly associated with movements in the 1980’s to protect the country’s most wild and scenic rivers from hydroelectric dam initiatives, they are legal instruments that can be used to set rules that Councils must abide by.

A WCO is the highest level of protection that can be afforded to any water body, and are focused purely around preserving outstanding natural values for all freshwater fish, wildlife and outdoor recreation. There are a number of WCO’s around the country applying to different water bodies in different ways.

With such a pure focus a WCO can have significant influence on the content of Regional Policy Statements and Regional and District Plans, as well as resource consent processes. Criticised in some circles for being too narrowly focused and lacking the ability to weigh and balance competing interests, this is essentially their purpose as a tool to identify the water bodies or stretches of water bodies that warrant the highest level of protection without compromise.

The WCO for the Ngaruroro and Clive rivers lodged by the New Zealand Fish and Game Council, Ngāti Hori ki Kohupatiki, Whitewater New Zealand, Jet Boating New Zealand and the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand, seeks the protection of the entire length of the Ngaruroro River and its tributaries, together with groundwater that is hydraulically connected to the lower Ngaruroro River. A total of 7km of the Clive River is also included.

The application states that the water bodies have certain outstanding values including:

  • Significance in accordance with tikanga Maori;
  • Cultural and spiritual purposes;
  • Habitat for rainbow trout;
  • Angling, amenity and recreation;
  • Habitat for avifauna;
  • Habitat for native fish;
  • Boating amenity and recreation;
  • Wild, scenic and natural characteristics; and
  • Scientific and ecological values.

Protection of these values is sought through a number of conditions applying to different stretches of the water bodies, including minimum flows and allocation limits for existing and new water takes.

In principal, the WCO does not seek to change the existing 2,400l/s minimum flow at Fernhill as it applies to existing resource consents to take water, but does seek to introduce a new minimum flow of 4,200l/s for any new takes.

Potential implications of the various conditions are complex to understand though, and there is concern among some parties that many groundwater takes in the region will have restrictions placed upon them in a similar manner as direct river takes, and that this may really affect the water security and resilience of many operations.

Consideration of the WCO is very different territory to the type of processes we have become familiar with over the last few years. Essentially all the same parties are involved, but in this case the parties who are often the submitters are the proponents.

The manner in which the proposal is to be considered is also different. While collaborative policy development initiates such as TANK, plan change processes and resource consent application processes entertain the weighing of competing environmental, cultural, economic and social interests, WCO’s are much more focused around environmental outcomes.

There is certainly a place for this, but one can’t help being a little concerned about how far reaching potential outcomes maybe from both a geographic and regional productivity perspective.

If one was to strategically limit the potential of the region, for whatever bizarre reason, we would unreasonably limit access to water, set overly conservative instream water quality standards, force unsustainable change at an unreasonable rate, introduce poorly conceived land use controls, fuel the urban and rural divide and assume prescriptive regulation rather than partnerships will better achieve environmental performance.

Clearly no one who is passionate about our region would set out to achieve this, but in determining what we want, perhaps we should be very aware of what we don’t want.

 

Hawke’s Bay Deer Velvet Goes International

Posted on by
Reply

It’s only been two years since Josh Buckman took the reins of the well- known Hawke’s Bay deer velvet company Gevir but already he is charging ahead, exporting the product to new markets with a unique proposition for natural health seekers.

Gevir is now exporting to China and the United States with plans to be in six other countries by the end of the year.

“We have a loyal following in New Zealand but the growth potential is in exporting our story and quality products. There is a much bigger customer base abroad and a huge opportunity to tell a unique story.

“It takes a lot of work and money to get into these markets but our long-term goal is a bigger business that adds value to deer farmers and the velvet industry.

“Deer velvet is one of the only renewable sources of all nine essential amino acids the body needs to grow and repair; it is made up of glucosamine, collagen, Omega 3 and Omega 6, minerals, nutrients and lipids, to name a few. It’s an adaptogen, increasing the body’s ability to withstand stress and ward off exhaustion. The more we can educate our customers about the benefits of our diverse and natural supplement, the better.”

Josh and the Gevir team have started exporting their premium supplements to retail markets in China and the United States and plan to be in Canada, Japan and South Korea by the end of the year.

Gevir has been making the deer velvet supplements for nearly 30 years, with premium deer antler velvet being the only ingredient.

Josh bought the business two years ago from Shelley and Clint Thomson, who founded the business and had owned Gevir for 26 years.

Since then, not only has he entered the export market but he has also diversified the product range, with a soon-to-be launched natural skincare range, and he has also introduced a pet range.

“I have been overwhelmed by the number of Kiwi farmers who have purchased the pet product for their working dogs. We knew the Gevir pet product would be an attractive option for pet dogs, especially older dogs, but we didn’t expect the product to be so popular for working dogs.”

Hawke’s Bay farmer Mike Ritsson-Thomas has a 13-year-old heading dog called Thai who tore her Achilles. After the vet tried

several different treatments, none of which worked, Mike decided to start feeding her his Gevir deer velvet tablets.

“It was like a miracle, suddenly Thai just came right and she no longer had a busted Achilles. She was back out on the farm with me mustering and easily jumping on and off the bike. It was unbelievable how the deer velvet gave her a new lease of life.”

And Thai wasn’t the only ‘miracle’ deer velvet case for the Tikokino sheep and beef farmer. His wife Caroline has a 12-year-old Aussie Terrier called Fergie who started going bald.

“She was so bald that her tail poked out like a finger. So, I fed her Gevir deer velvet tablets every day and within a few months she had a thick coat again, she was much more sprightly and back running around the farm.”

Mike is a firm believer in the natural product and has been taking the Gevir deer velvet tablets for over 10 years.

“As a farmer you get a lot of bashes and bruises. I find the deer velvet helps me heal quickly and I don’t have the aches I had before.”

His wife Caroline used to have arthritis in her knee but after taking Gevir for three months, the pain has stopped.

“If I stop taking the deer velvet tablets I get aches and pains, so there is a noticeable difference.”

Josh first came across deer velvet following multiple shoulder injuries and three reconstruction surgeries, which left him in constant discomfort with numbness and pins and needles.

“I first discovered deer velvet following several dislocations and surgery from playing rugby. I had seen Gevir for years at rural retailers and remember the old tv ads and gave it a go after my third shoulder reconstruction. When using Gevir following surgery I made an exceptionally speedy recovery, particularly with the reduction in pain and numbness, and was back to work in four weeks. So I am very passionate about the product and believe there is huge potential to educate people on the long-term benefits and improved quality of life with Gevir.”

Josh was working in a diverse sales and project role with FMG and was also managing his finishing farm near Havelock North when he heard the Thomsons were looking to pass the reins of Gevir on.

“My wife and I jumped at the opportunity with Gevir, we were attracted to the natural health and renewable element but also to the health benefits. It is sustainable, it grows every year and the deer don’t have to be killed to produce it. Deer velvet is the fastest growing mammal tissue with more than 300 active components. It is hard not to be excited about the diverse and unique supplement we produce with some of New Zealand’s best deer farmers.”

“We are really excited about sharing Gevir with the world and providing our passionate farmers with the added value they deserve.”

 

Garth Cowie – Napier Port boss weighs anchor after 18 years

Posted on by
Reply

Back in 1999, Garth Cowie “traded oysters for red wine” when he left the top job at South Port in Bluff and headed north to become chief executive at Napier Port.

“At the time I most probably thought I was getting the raw end of the deal but I’ve certainly found that the lifestyle and the growth prospects here were significant, compared to Bluff, and the port has gone from strength to strength since then.”

Garth retires as CEO in December after overseeing 18 years of growth and significant development at Napier Port.

When he announced his decision to leave in April, port chairman Alasdair MacLeod said Garth should take great pride in a number of achievements under his watch that have positioned Napier Port well for the future.

“He’s developed an outstanding senior management team and a motivated and dedicated staff across the board – across our marine, cargo handling and support functions. They are pushing industry boundaries nationally and internationally in health and safety, technology and logistics,” Alasdair said.

“Napier Port’s relationship with customers and suppliers is strong and the company is forging partnerships for collaboration across the globe. We are heading towards a healthy profit this year and we are currently planning for a wharf development that will see Napier Port significantly increase its capacity.”

When Garth arrived from South Port in 1999 – after five years as the Southland facility’s CEO – Napier Port was handling about 67,000 twenty-foot equivalent (TEU) containers a year. This year it will handle more than 288,000 and volumes are forecast to continue growing over coming years.

Cargo and log volumes have also increased markedly and Garth says significantly, the growth has been achieved on virtually the same physical footprint the port had when he arrived.

A key highlight over his time leading the company has been Napier surpassing Wellington and Port Chalmers to become the country’s fourth largest container terminal.

While the port industry has a history of strong union involvement, Garth says another highlight has been a change of culture to a more constructive, open and transparent relationship across the organisation. This was highlighted after last year’s Kaikoura earthquake which brought significant extra work to Napier, meaning the peak season arrived in December rather than March.

“It meant a huge change and our people had to adapt and be flexible to rise to the challenge. Our staff were working flat tack for six rather than three months of the year. We couldn’t allow people to go on leave so they had to reorganise their holidays and that sort of thing. So it’s the people who have really made all the difference over my time and that will be the thing I miss the most – the day-to-day contact and the relationships with the people here.”

Another highlight has been the port’s consultation over its upcoming $100 million-plus 6 Wharf development, which has involved feedback from more than 2000 people.

Born and bred in Invercargill, Garth studied accounting at university and began his working life as an assistant auditor with the Government Audit Office. In 1979 he became the accountant for what was then the Southland Harbour Board.

He was the harbour board’s secretary when it morphed into South Port in 1988, and took up the deputy chief executive role followed, in 1994, by the CEO role which he held for five years before heading north to Hawke’s Bay.

Garth says there were a number of factors behind his decision to step down after 18 years running Napier Port. One was Prime Minister John Key’s departure last year.

“He picked his own time, and didn’t have to. That started making me reflect that there is a right time for the chief executive to retire.”

Then long-serving port employee Graeme Hart passed away in January, aged 67.

“He didn’t get to enjoy the retirement that was coming. Both of those were triggers for me to think about what my future was going to be.”

Having turned 60 himself, Garth says he was also mindful of the major expansion work being planned at the port.

“With the development that we’ve got coming up, if I was going to stay I would need to stay to see it through, which is probably about another four years. I thought that was going to be too long and I really needed to make a decision to allow the new CEO to come onboard early enough to work through and understand it completely by the time the full business case was developed.”

While he is looking forward to stepping aside from the heavy demands of a CEO role, Garth will continue to chair a committee overseeing Hastings District Council’s water services change programme and will be looking to pick up other governance roles or advisory work.

“And hopefully my golf handicap might start to come down, slowly.”

George Reedy – Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga chief executive

Posted on by
Reply

George Reedy is the chief executive of Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga, a charitable trust that provides a wide range of health, social and education services to over 10,000 whanau. The Profit put a series of questions to George.

What’s your background?

I grew up in Tikitiki, up the East Coast, surrounded by uncles, aunts and grandparents. That gave me a solid start in life. I was secure in the knowledge of who I was, and who was there for me.

Who has been the most inspirational person in your life?

One of my earliest memories is of my mother piggybacking me across a floodgate spanning a flooded stream. It was quite a dangerous exercise really, but my mother was determined to get me across because, on the other side, the school bus was waiting for me. That was the value she put on education.

My parents, Te Moana and Apikara Rangi, worked hard. To them, education was the ultimate goal, the gateway to everything they didn’t have. That’s why I never got a day off school just because the stream was flooded. It’s an ethos that has always stayed with me. It’s why I’ve spent the past 20 years working in Māori development.

What career path have you followed?

After school, I spent a bit of time fencing, then went into the forestry service before getting a cadetship with Māori Affairs. They introduced me to accountancy and I realised I was really good with numbers. I went on to do a degree in accountancy and become a Chartered Accountant. That was my pathway into senior management.

Since then I’ve had many roles in a range of sectors, including Government and Māori economic and development initiatives. My focus is on growing sustainable businesses using information technology combined with a strong emphasis on quality of service and product.

What is a stand-out feature of your role?

TToH is values-based. That’s a lot more than a mission statement on the wall. We really do underpin everything with cultural values. They shape our world view, our business operations, and the way we function on a daily basis. As Chief Executive, it’s an important part of my role to maintain that. For example, our staff are 80 percent Māori, and one of our key goals is to promote the development of a skilled Māori workforce.

Out in the community, we’re engaged with 10,000 whānau. About 75 percent of them are younger than 25, and many are living in challenging circumstances, focused on day-to-day survival. That’s their reality.

TToH’s reality is the need to connect with whānau, and support them into a space where they can start to take control of their own lives and move forward.

What is Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga?

Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga is a Charitable Trust, governed by a board of trustees elected by the 14 marae of Heretaunga.

The organisation started 32 years ago, becoming an Incorporated Society on September 19, 1985. Its base was the tractor shed at Waipatu marae. It had $60 in the bank and one part-time employee. The office was the boot of a Toyota Corolla.

Today, TToH owns a substantial campus in Orchard Rd. It was once the DB Heretaunga. Now it’s home to our medical and dental centre, mental health centre, purpose-built childcare centre, and our central daily operations. This includes the administration of a large portfolio of health, social and education contracts applied across a large geographical area – from Mahia to Wellington and across to Wanganui.

We have 270 employees, which probably makes us one of Hawke’s Bay’s larger employers. It might sound like a platitude, but the staff really are the foundation of TToH. They’re dedicated, selfless, and I think they really don’t realise how good they are at what they do.

What are your plans for the future of Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga?

The long-term sustainability of this organisation is crucial for the people of Heretaunga. We are here for them in ways that no other organisation is, or can be.

We’ve never received a cent of Treaty Settlement money. We are where we are today, turning over $20 million a year, through sheer hard work. We will continue to do that, but while we remain dependent on government contracts, there’s always uncertainty. I want TToH to become less dependent on contracts, and more financially independent.

I look at the needs of our people out there, and they’re the same as everyone else’s – warm, secure housing, affordable and effective healthcare, social connection, jobs, good incomes, education and hope for the future. There’s too much of that missing from the picture at the moment.

So we’re thinking about wider horizons, and for a start, that’s probably going to mean we step into the social housing space. Every indicator for high-needs and poor social outcomes begins with poor housing.

I also want big changes in the way that successive governments shape their policies and contracts around Māori support.

Mainstream contracts come out of centralised policy, one size fits all. Too many are process-driven box- ticking exercises that are never going to achieve fundamental, long-lasting change for whānau. But trying to change bureaucratic thinking around that is huge. It’s a real mind-shift. To say, fund us for an agreed set of outcomes, and let us do it our way, involves high levels of trust.

What TToH achievement are you most proud of?

Late last year we introduced a new system of workforce organisation, in the form of multi-skilled, integrated teams. Each team has the capacity to create individualised, wraparound packages of care and support for whānau, depending on their circumstances. They can also draw on other teams with relevant skills to help that whānau.

So we’ve gone from mono-skilled teams working within their own contract silos, to teams with the ability to create a holistic, integrated plan that includes tackling the underlying issues affecting whānau.

This system is producing exponentially better outcomes for whānau, and efficiencies for TToH. Why have five cars up the driveway when one, with two people in it, can do the job.

What do you enjoy doing in your spare time?

My heartfelt thanks go to Iron Māori, who taught me how to swim. Now I go swimming and biking and walking all the time. I love it. You might see me walking on Te Mata Peak from time to time.