By David
I know Swimwatch is hated by some and treated with huge suspicion by many. And that is probably the way it should be. However perhaps we are beginning to see signs that the basic concerns expressed here might be gaining some main stream momentum. Perhaps there are problems in the Sport NZ and Swimming NZ house that need to be addressed.
Main-stream journalist, Simon Plumb, seems to think something’s not right. Here is a deeply interesting article posted on the Stuff news website today. Ominously it was titled, “Sport NZ silent on tax-payer funded review.”
Sport New Zealand is trying to stop information being released on the state of the government’s second-biggest Olympic investment and the findings of a review into Bike NZ’s capabilities. Taxpayers will foot a bill of $70,500 after Sport NZ commissioned a review of Bike New Zealand – who received $18.3 million in public funding for its last Olympics campaign — and which looked at the national sport organisation’s financial state including the loss of its major sponsor, its relocation to Cambridge and high-performance planning in the wake of the sudden departure of successful national sprint coach Justin Grace and chief executive Kieran Turner.
Under the Official Information Act, Fairfax Media has requested details of the review. Sport NZ confirmed it had spent $70,500 on the review which was “initiated by BikeNZ” and “conducted by Martin Jenkins”, a domestic consultancy firm owned by former Sport NZ boss Nick Hill. However, present Sport NZ chief executive Peter Miskimmin refused the newspaper’s request for details of the report into the troubled national sports organisation. Miskimmin said one of the reasons for his refusal came after considering whether there is “an overriding public interest” in making the document public.
“In deciding to withhold this information I have considered whether there is an overriding public interest in making this information available to the public. I am satisfied that the balance of public interest is in Sport NZ’s ability to carry out its functions effectively,” Miskimmin said in a written response.
Rowing was the only sport to receive more public funding ($19.1m) than cycling for the London 2012 Olympic Games. Last year, BikeNZ received a further $3.9m in high-performance support from taxpayers. That funding is projected to increase to $4.3m annually to the next Olympic Games in Brazil in 2016.
At an operational level, BikeNZ has been under serious pressure over the past two years. Last year the taxpayer-funded organisation avoided “a relatively large” financial deficit only by “capitalising” $200,000 spent on redeveloping a website (moving a $200,000 expense into an asset instead) and the organisation is still trying to replace the loss of its prime commercial sponsor which left two years ago.
Last year successful sprint coach Justin Grace and chief executive Kieran Turner both suddenly quit BikeNZ ahead of an impending relocation to a new, multimillion- dollar velodrome in Cambridge. Recent Star-Times investigations have also included claims a BikeNZ junior development coach has tried to influence young riders to take pain pills before races.
When offered a further opportunity to provide more detail on the BikeNZ review, Sport NZ staff admitted there are “a number of challenges facing the organisation” including “financial issues”, “development of BikeNZ’s high-performance programme” and “relocation to Cambridge”. But the organisation only provided a bullet-point “summary” of less than 250 words on the review. Fairfax Media has filed a complaint with the Ombudsman.
So what are the points in Simon Plumb’s article that should cause us concern? Well first and foremost is the overall impression that something is not right; the facts in an event funded by the public purse are not as open and transparent as they should be. It is exactly the same with swimming. North Korean-style elections, a car park full of expensive new cars, the impression of them-and-us perks handed out by the organization and the appointment of officials loaded down with anti-constitutional conflicts of interest all contribute to a similar impression to the one Plumb has found in Bike NZ.
Peter Miskimmin’s decision to decline the request by Fairfax Media for a copy of the Bike NZ report is typical of this outfit. Have you noticed how minutes of Board Meetings are no longer published on the SNZ website? Swimwatch readers may remember when I used the Official Information Act to request a copy of the minutes of the meeting Miskimmin had with Brian Palmer and Bronwin Radford. I was certain that meeting had been bad for swimming. And I still think it was. Miskimmin, you may recall, declined my request for pretty much the same reasons he has declined Fairfax.
“In deciding to withhold this information I have considered whether there is an overriding public interest in making this information available to the public. I am satisfied that the balance of public interest is in Sport NZ’s ability to carry out its functions effectively,”
I do so dislike that argument – our interest is the public interest. What is good for us is good for the public. Some really terrible people have tried to hide behind that entitlement argument. President Nixon did it all the time. The Washington Post did not need to know about Watergate because the President’s interests were the public’s interests. Well, New Zealand sports people, Nixon was wrong and so is Miskimmin. The very fact that Miskimmin is making that assertion is proof enough that we must know what is going on behind Miskimmin’s closed doors. I do hope the Ombudsman understands that imperative.
I also dislike the impression of favouritism created by the appointment of the firm to look into the affairs of Bike NZ.
Sport NZ confirmed it had spent $70,500 on the review which was “conducted by Martin Jenkins”, a domestic consultancy firm owned by former Sport NZ boss Nick Hill.
What on God’s good earth is that all about? Paying a former Sport NZ boss $70,500 may be as pure as the driven snow. But the impression of favouritism, of paying your mates is not good. Was there a competitive tender for this work? Who else quoted for the job? Given the history, we need to know that all was above board in the selection process. The public’s money does not belong to any civil servant.
The following item in Plumb’s article is also cause for deep concern.
Last year the taxpayer-funded organisation avoided “a relatively large” financial deficit only by “capitalising” $200,000 spent on redeveloping a website”.
What that means is Bike NZ spent $200,000 on their website and, instead of calling it an expense, Bike NZ said it was an intangible fixed asset. Now, in my view, capitalising the cost of altering a website is an accounting stretch. I suspect it is technically quite okay but, for me, altering a charitable sporting organization’s website is more prudently treated as an expense. It would be interesting to know whether Miskimmin knew and approved of the website expense being treated in this way.
As an aside where on earth did the $200,000 go? Some Swimwatch readers may know my daughter, Jane, has spent her working life around the internet and some of the world’s biggest websites. I haven’t asked her but from my observation of the Bike NZ website I don’t think Bike NZ got $200,000 worth. I do hope they are amortizing the value of their asset pretty sharply in this year’s accounts. It will be interesting to see.
Note from Jane: There are some ridiculous price tags attached to web development and design projects (my agency was once told by a client that if their web development company were to implement a small series of 301 redirects on their website, it would cost the client £10,000, or $20,000 New Zealand dollars). This doesn’t mean that the price tags are worth it, and my experience over here is that more companies are becoming aware of what they do not have to pay for this stuff. I would be curious about the breakdown of $200,000, including employee hours and how many agencies were involved. I can understand, and have seen, large e-commerce sites or flagship sites for big brands cost many times more than this to develop / design, but a website for a sports organisation should not cost nearly that much. It’s worth noting that while the website work just fine, there are little issues like URL structure, title tags, duplicate versions of the site depending on small URL changes, etc. that haven’t been tailored: for $200,000, you’d expect the site to be absolutely perfect. I don’t work in the New Zealand design / dev community so I am not sure what this should have cost in the local market, but I definitely agree that $200,000 seems like it’s on the high side.
And finally there is this gem.
“The organisation is still trying to replace the loss of its prime commercial sponsor which left two years ago.”
I wonder who else has lost its prime commercial sponsor recently? Oh yes, State canned SNZ. Is the Miskimmin socialist empire falling to bits? Surf, Bike, Swimming – it may just be bad luck of course. But, and Swimwatch critics take note, it may also be more than that. It may pay us all to treat what Sport NZ and Swimming NZ say and do with caution. At least that’s the message I think comes out of Simon Plumb’s story.
