• 07 Jun 2017 10:13 AM | Kerrie Green (Administrator)

    Host your winter conference at Oaks Cypress Lakes Resort and take advantage of this special offer for $199pp which includes: 

    • One night in a 2 Bedroom Villa
    • Full buffet breakfast valued at $35 per person
    • Day Delegate Package valued at $75 per person

    Hurry book before 30 June! 

    For all enquires please telephone 02 4993 1806 or email us on 

    For further information, please click here.

  • 31 May 2017 1:59 PM | Kerrie Green (Administrator)

    First came the cell phone, next it was the open plan office and soon after it was hot desking. So what next in collaborative office design?

    According to workspace expert, Andrew Simmons from Unispace, his take on the office of the future is a “liberated team environment” that comprises of activity-based working. It also involves fully non-territorial workplaces, meaning employees can work from anywhere in the world.

    Together with his colleague and fellow workspace strategy expert, Kate Horton, Andrew delivered a fascinating presentation at our Deloitte Private Club in Auckland on May 8.

    Andrew and Kate were part of a night focussing on the impact our environment plays in supporting employees and organisations to achieve their goals.

    The importance of collaboration

    With companies placing an increasing emphasis on retaining talent, it’s more important than ever to offer an environment that allow employees flexibility and enjoyment, while fostering the ability to work more collaboratively.

    In a global study of HR leaders recently completed by Unispace, respondents noted that a change in workspace design has the greatest impact on knowledge sharing, closely followed by improving culture and employee engagement. Knowledge sharing is seen to be highly valuable in the ideas and entrepreneur-based economy that we are cultivating.

    The "P" word

    But does changing your workspace boost productivity? This was one of the big questions put to Kate and Andrew at the Deloitte Private Club session.

    While collaboration was seen as an asset for organisations, Deloitte Private Club attendees wanted to know that by having more of these spaces, their teams wouldn’t simply fill up their time ‘chatting’ and not ‘doing’. Kate says there is such a thing as ineffective and effective collaboration.

    “We will start to see facilitation roles within teams becoming more prominent in the future and more emphasis on getting the best out of collaboration.”

    She went onto add that there has been a shift in how we view productivity, from an individual focus to being more about what a company as a whole can produce.

    “It’s also around embracing and accepting that chatting with a colleague over a coffee can be just as productive as churning out a report.”

    Kate also added that when creating a new or refreshed office space, there are usually three distinct work modes and areas that employees need: worksettings to support individual work – whether that be 'do not disturb' focus areas or more routine/process type work; a range of spaces for collaboration; and a hub to socialise. These spaces all serve different functions and employees need a mix of the three.

    One design doesn’t fit all - what does this mean for your office environment?

    The design of your workspace has to fit what your company values and aims to achieve.

    Andrew says he’s worked with companies where collaboration was their highest value, so their main space was designed for people to freely interrupt their colleagues, with a smaller 'noise-free' focus zone at the back of the floor.

    “For example, I like paperless workplaces but then you have designers who need their sketch paper and their work pads so that style won’t work for them,” he adds.

    “At the end of the day, it’s about embracing people’s differences, not driving an ideology.”

    What's next in workspace design

    The workplace of the future is exciting, dynamic, uses less paper rather than going paperless, and is wireless and liberated. It’s a place where work is done in the space that suits the project or task, be it a meeting room, a café, a kitchen or a desk. It’s a place where a company can have employees across the globe and still feel connected to their organisation through technology and we’re looking forward to seeing how this plays out!

    This article was originally sourced from the Deloitte Private website here and was written by Erin McLean. 

  • 30 May 2017 2:55 PM | Kerrie Green (Administrator)

    During the last 12 months, NZTech has gone from strength to strength and a key success factor has been our exceptional Board. Our Annual General Meeting (AGM) is coming up and that means election season is now upon us!

    We are now seeking nominations for our Board and encourage you to consider the role or nominate someone who can make an impact. In line with our Board Diversity Policy, we have actively identified skills and experience needed to help us accelerate our strategies and ensure diverse thinking. To continue building on our success it is critical to have the drive and support of a purposeful Board.

    NZTech is the voice of the organisations that are redefining the world we live in. Technology is creating jobs and growth throughout New Zealand. The tech sector makes up 8% of the country’s GDP and contributes over $6.3 billion in exports.

    NZTech’s vision is a prosperous New Zealand, led by a vibrant tech sector. To connect, promote and advance the tech sector we focus our work on three key areas; education, skills and talent; business growth and exports; and strong government relations. Read what we have achieved in the last year here.

    Board Nominations

    There is now an opportunity to put yourself forward, or nominate someone, for a role on the NZTech Board. This year we have vacancies for the following positions:

    • Major Corporate (3 positions)
    • Corporate – Other (2 positions)
    • Business (1 position)
    • Government/Education (1 position)

    It is important to note that while the board candidate must be a from an NZTech member organisation, they do not need to be from the same membership tier that they wish to represent on the Board, provided that they are nominated by at least one Member of that tier. The details of what’s required and who is entitled to be elected are set out on the attached form.

    If you wish to nominate someone for a position on the Board, the nomination must be forwarded to Chantal Thomas by 5pm Wednesday 14 June 2017.

    Notices and Remits

    If you wish to propose any notices or motions to be considered at the AGM, please send them to Chantal Thomas by 5pm Thursday 29 June 2017.

    Electronic voting and Other Key Dates

    The voting will take place electronically in advance of the meeting and the results will be announced at the AGM

    Please see the current constitution for an outline of Board Membership and election processes.

    The NZTech AGM is scheduled for the 20 July 2017 and is to be held in Auckland. We will be holding the formal AGM presentation from 4pm, followed by refreshments and given it is election year we are working on getting a panel discussion from the various political parties to discuss their thoughts on tech.

    Key dates related to the AGM are as follows:

    • Now: Call for Nominations for Board representatives issued to Members
    • 14 June: Deadline for nominations to be received by NZTech for Board representatives
    • 21 June: List of Board nominees to be issued to Members and electronic voting commences
    • 29 June: Any proposed notices, motions or remits to be advised to NZTech
    • 7 July: Electronic voting closes
    • 13 July: Members to have confirmed attendance at the AGM
    • 19 July: Any proxies for the AGM received by NZTech
    • 20 July: AGM event in Auckland, results of electronic voting announced.

    This article was originally sourced from the NZTech website here

  • 30 May 2017 2:47 PM | Kerrie Green (Administrator)

    The subject of tipping has again raised its head but the question many are asking is does New Zealand really need to adopt another American tradition?

    Deputy Prime Minister Paula Bennett put the word out last week for New Zealanders to tip more often which, in turn, would encourage better quality service at restaurants. It is an interesting call and one that draws mixed responses in a country where tipping is foreign, and often left to foreigners.

    Ms Bennett does not want tipping to become mandatory but believed it should be a reward for good service and an incentive for waitstaff to improve their service.

    She described it as a ''plus, plus''. People will enjoy their jobs more and be better paid.

    In the United States tipping is pretty much considered compulsory. The usual amount can be up to 20% of the total bill. But some waitstaff in that country are also paid a pittance in hourly rates and rely on tips to boost wages.

    New Zealand wages for waitstaff are traditionally low, at minimum wage or just above, and the hours can be long and unsociable. That can rub off on some staff, who seem disinterested, bored and give the impression they would rather be anywhere else than tending to your dining experience.

    As a consumer, you learn to appreciate and welcome good, attentive and genuine staff.

    But as an employer, there must be an expectation staff, even those earning minimum wage, should always provide good service. After all, it reflects on the establishment.

    Depending on what side of the fence you sit, there are arguments for and against tipping.

    The Etu union believes increased tipping would allow restaurants to get away with paying staff poorly. International research also suggests tipping can unfairly reward white, young, and attractive front-of-house staff at the expense of others.

    However, the hospitality industry is, not surprisingly, behind increased tipping.

    The Restaurant Association considered tipping a useful tool to help retain staff. An association spokesman said the restaurant industry had tight margins and therefore it was tough for operators to push up wages. The association believed New Zealand had not yet embraced tipping because our hospitality system was relatively young.

    If it was to become widely accepted in this country, a more transparent means of tipping would need to be adopted. The current method does not necessarily reward the quality staff tips are intended for.

    Tipping sometimes involves leaving coins in a jar at the front counter or, more recently, having eftpos machines which allow for a tip percentage to be included in the bill.

    The problem with communal tipping is there is no guarantee the quality staff who deserve, or prompted, the tip ever see its full benefits. If tipping is to be encouraged then the money should be handed directly to the staff who have earned it, rather than into a pool of funding which is then distributed evenly among staff.

    If the aim is to encourage better service then rewarding individual quality staff is the only way to achieve that.

    There is no doubt tipping has increased in this country and much of that is thought to be because of the increase in United States visitors to our shores.

    Love it or hate it, tipping will very likely continue to increase given the continued rise in tourism. However, there will remain a core of people who will object to paying for good service, something that arguably should exist anyway.

    This article was originally sourced from the Otago Daily Times here

  • 30 May 2017 1:56 PM | Kerrie Green (Administrator)

    Despite continuous reviews, New Zealand still looks years away from a planning framework that concentrates on outcomes rather than processes. The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) continues to read as a list of planning considerations, followed by complex process instructions. No guidance is contained in the Act as to how matters are to be provided for and how they can be simultaneously pursued in the real-world environment.

    The comment raised almost 20 years ago remains relevant:

    “The New Zealand Government, communities and businesses must return their focus to the environmental outcomes that are being sought through the RMA rather than simply the processes associated with the Act.”

    Taken from the 1998 Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment report ‘Towards Sustainable Development, The Role of the Resource Management Act’.

    Recent national planning initiatives have sought to speed up the planning system by reducing opportunities for public participation, at the same time as increasing Central Government involvement in local decision making. These changes were recognised in the New Zealand Productivity Commission ‘Better Urban Planning Final Report 2017’ and OECD Environmental Performance Reviews for New Zealand 2017.

    Opportunities for public scrutiny, feedback and challenge, have long been the principle means of testing the quality of local decision making. This check is being progressively removed without a thorough review of the costs and benefits of hearing and appeal processes, including the new streamlined plan making process for the Auckland and Christchurch replacement plans.

    In its place is a higher reliance on process requirements and key decision makers exercising good judgement. This increases the risks that decisions made will be ad-hoc, politicised and inconsistent with decisions made in other areas. There is little point in requiring reports to be produced or certain groups to be consulted, if there is no check on the quality of reports or the capability of groups to respond.

    As pointed out by the Resource Management Law Association in their 2012 Position Statement on ‘Plan Agility and First Schedule Reform’

    “Any reform [of the plan making system] would become a self defeating exercise if the quality of the end product suffers to such an extent that greater overall social, economic or indeed environmental costs are imposed through inferior planning outcomes, than are saved through more timely preparation.”

    I consider that removal of existing checks on the plan making process, such as the removal of appeal rights can only safely take place, where alternative safeguards apply. One method which may be able to achieve this is national direction on key outcomes in urban environments that need to be achieved and guidance on how Councils should manage competing priorities.

    I doubt that the majority of New Zealanders want increased housing supply at any cost. Rather it is anticipated that the majority of people seek housing which is affordable, safe and comfortable. As well as a wider neighbourhood which is accessible, safe, clean, attractive and interesting.

    The point was made by the New Zealand Institute of Surveyors in their 2013 submission on the RMA Discussion Document that: “There is little point in developing new places to live, if the overriding objective of the RMA does not require the provision of amenity”. The concept that new housing should be pleasant to live in, is also supported by planning policies and design guidance produced by the New South Wales (NSW) and Victorian State Governments.

    In a real-world situation, we know that the only way that multiple objectives can be simultaneously achieved is through a balancing of priorities. Policies which pursue one priority over all others, are likely to lead to less desirable outcomes.

    Considerable debate exists in the planning arena of how much each competing objective can or should be provided for (such as whether minimum standards should apply) or what objectives should take priority where trade-offs need to be made. There is significant potential for objectives regarding housing growth, housing and infrastructure costs, accessibility, reduction in natural hazard risks, protection of heritage and cultural resources, safeguarding of water quality and biodiversity, provision of public and private types of amenity and access to recreation resources to clash.

    Planning policy in other countries refers to specific urban outcomes and objectives, that go beyond a growth in housing supply. The English National Planning Framework 2012 contains the objective “always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings”. Planning Policy Wales (8th edition 2016) identifies that urban redevelopment should not lead to a serious loss of privacy or overshadowing of neighbouring dwellings. The 2016 Victorian Apartment Design Standards contains several amenity objectives regarding daylight, privacy and outlook for new and existing residents. With the NSW State Environmental Planning Policy 65 (reviewed 2015) having the purpose of improving the design quality of residential apartment development.

    The OECD Environmental Performance Review for New Zealand 2017 identifies recent planning changes, including the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 and 2016 National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity as not consistent with international best practice due to reduced rights for public participation, lack of inclusion of sustainable development principles, lack of direction on natural hazard risk and overly narrow focus on new housing development. In contrast, it recommends that policy be introduced which “clearly outline what standards and outcomes local plans and developments should achieve”in urban environments.

    The same criticisms appear to equally apply to proposed enabling planning provisions for Urban Development Authorities contained in the Urban Development Authorities Discussion Document, released in February 2017 by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. With the accompanying Regulatory Impact Statement identifying risks for the proposal as including “the potential misuse of powers for private gain”,“the Executive having unjustified control”, “overly politicised” decision making, and possible conflict with the objectives of existing local policies.

    Existing planning legislation and proposed changes fail to provide a good urban planning framework, which clearly sets out desired outcomes for urban environments. Principles and standards are needed for key outcomes such as affordability, housing supply, amenity, accessibility and safety. Rather than each local area entering into localised and potentially highly politicised battles of what represents a “reasonable level” of amenity to protect or provide, it would be better for national direction to be given for different types of urban environments. At the end of the day, most residents want a home they enjoy living in, rather than just a roof over their head.

    This article was originally sourced from Scoop Independent News here and was written by Allison Tindale. 

    Allison Tindale is a resource management professional with over fifteen years of experience in New Zealand, Australia and Britain. She is a member of the New Zealand Planning Institute and holds a Masters of Urban and Regional Planning (with Honours) from the University of Sydney, Australia.

  • 30 May 2017 1:49 PM | Kerrie Green (Administrator)

    Press Release: Water New Zealand

    Don't treat your toilet as a rubbish bin - new video launched

    22 May 2017

    There is a big problem lurking in sewers - one that’s becoming an expensive burden on householders, ratepayers and damaging our environment.

    Putting wipes down the toilet can block pipes, which can lead to sewage overflows into homes or creeks. It's likely they can block your sewer pipes leading to a costly plumbing bill.

    Wastewater treatment plants too are under increasing stress because of the growing mass of products being flushed down the sewers.

    Water New Zealand and the Food and Grocery Council (representing local New Zealand manufacturers and suppliers) have been working together to highlight the problems caused by the incorrect disposal of wipes and other products such as facial tissues and sanitary hygiene products.

    They've produced a video which they hope will help get the "don’t treat your toilet like a rubbish bin" message to the public.

    Cleaning wipes, baby wipes, make up removal wipes and facial tissues are among a range of products that people mistakenly flush down the toilet, says Food and Grocery Council Chief Executive Katherine Rich.

    "These products get caught in pipes, pump stations and wastewater treatment plants and cause expensive blockages."

    "Once past the s-bend, flushed wipes can get caught and block household sewers, causing toilets to backflow into bathrooms.

    "Not only is this unpleasant, it comes with costly plumbing bills for homeowners. If the wipes do make it further down the drain they cling to wastewater pipes, pumps and often congeal with fats and grease to block sewers.

    Water New Zealand Chief Executive John Pfahlert says flushing wipes also damage the environment.

    "Clogged sewers can overflow into rivers and the oceans and destroy wildlife, placing big costs on councils and rate payers to clean up.

    "Everything we flush finds its way into a wastewater treatment plant and then to oceans, rivers or the land."

    The Food and Grocery Council, supported by Water New Zealand, have produced a video outlining why our toilets should NEVER be treated as a rubbish bin. It’s hoped that this video will help to educate people about the costly problems of flushing the wrong things down the toilet. The video is available for download from: or Water New Zealand website

    Please, tell your family and friends – our toilets are not rubbish bin. If it’s not pee, poo or toilet paper it should not be flushed.

    Water New Zealand is a national not-for-profit organisation which promotes the sustainable management and development of New Zealand’s three waters (freshwater, wastewater and storm water). Water New Zealand is the country's largest water industry body, providing leadership and support in the water sector through advocacy, collaboration and professional development. Its 1,600 members are drawn from all areas of the water management industry including regional councils and territorial authorities, consultants, suppliers, government agencies, academia and scientists.

    This media release was originally sourced from Scoop Independent News here. 

  • 30 May 2017 1:30 PM | Kerrie Green (Administrator)

    Recent articles on the moves to harness big data in agriculture have highlighted concerns about who owns that data, how it might be used and who should benefit from that usage. Industry expert Andrew Cooke believes these tensions can be managed, allowing the industry to look at the potential benefits.

    OPINION: The headline was confronting - big companies were being told to "Back off: farmers own their farm data" (March 23). Like other similar articles this one drew attention to the importance of the information economy to farming: the capture of real world activity and the application of advanced analytics to provide insight about farming systems.

    We see the tensions of big companies gathering data in our everyday lives: banks, credit card companies, and loyalty schemes capture information about our spending habits and organisations use it to target offers. Search engines and web browsers track our online interests and provide relevant advertisements. Our smartphones track our every move.

    We're somewhat insulated from the impact of this data collection in our personal lives. Competition and regulations – particularly consumer privacy laws – control what companies can do with data about us, and most of what we see results from anonymised use of information.

    In business, the rules are somewhat less clear cut. Privacy protections apply to personally identifiable data, but the bulk of business and farm information use is controlled by the terms of business to business contracts. If a farmer wishes to control the data they have collected on farm, they need to ensure that their service providers have appropriate terms and shared expectations about what can and cannot be done with that data.


    Back off big companies: farmers own their farm data

    The situation may be more subtle when data is collected by companies during their normal course of business. Unless a farmer has agreed otherwise, it's likely that the GPS co-ordinates collected by their fertiliser spreader and the milk solids or carcass records collected by processors are under the control of those organisations. Of course, they'll share that data with the farmer, but a common understanding about the use of that data is even more important.

    Two Primary Growth Partnerships (PGP) programmes between industry and the Ministry for Primary Industries have recognised both the challenges of the rapidly evolving information space and the opportunities for making effective use of farm information. I've been privileged to work with The Transforming the Dairy Value Chain and Red Meat Profit Partnership PGP programmes, farmers, and some 60 companies and organisations to help create the Farm Data Code of Practice, farm data standards, and DataLinker.

    The Farm Data Code of Practice provides an accreditation process that helps farmers and organisations to achieve a more transparent understanding of how data will be collected and used. The code is administered by Federated Farmers, Beef+Lamb NZ, DairyNZ, the Dairy Companies Association, Meat Industry Association, Veterinary Association, and the Maori Trustee. Accreditation by an independent review panel provides assurance for farmers that organisations have clear terms that help farmers understand how their data may be used, and appropriate policies and controls around data access. Greenlea Premier Meats and the Gallagher Apps On Farm joint venture are the two most recently accredited organisations. Full details are at

    The industry projects don't stop with accreditation. DataLinker is a technology framework that helps companies to share data effectively, directed by their farmers or subscribers. Farmers are frustrated with having to repeat data across multiple forms or extract data manually from one system and re-enter it into another, and DataLinker addresses this problem. It ensures that the recipients of data have agreed to standard data access rules, and lets farmers explicitly grant or deny permission for data to flow.

    B+LNZ Genetics has recently implemented the DataLinker framework in its business. General manager Graham Alder says "Currently we need to support multiple integration end points when exchanging data with different parties. B+LNZ Genetics are looking forward to being able to exchange data with different parties via a single industry standard endpoint. DataLinker provides us a good framework in which to make data exchange agreements, without being dependent on DataLinker (or any other intermediary) for the data exchange."

    Importantly for both farmers and industry players, the DataLinker framework is not another database system that must be populated and maintained. It is a set of specifications that use the latest internet standards, so companies adopting the framework are responsible for their own decisions about the way it is implemented internally. A small annual membership fee contributes to keeping the specifications up-to-date as technology evolves.

    Farmers are right to be talking about data, who owns it and how it will impact on the future, not only in their industry but in their everyday lives.

    It's called Big Data for a reason – there are big challenges and opportunities ahead. Whether farmers own data as part of their business operation and sell it to others or share it through a project like DataLinker, they stand to benefit from that collection, sharing and analysis.

    That future is not yet written but people can rest assured there are organisations working hard to make sure that the farmers, the industry and wider economy own the benefits.

    This article was originally sourced from Stuff NZ here

  • 30 May 2017 1:24 PM | Kerrie Green (Administrator)

    There's concern a shortage of bus drivers across the country is set to reach an all-time high.

    The Bus and Coach Association says it's struggling to find drivers, and it's meaning managers and workshop staff are getting behind the wheel.

    Ritchies transport director Andrew Ritchie is normally behind the desk, but even he's been getting behind the wheel.

    "At the moment it's sort of starting to hit a peak, it's just getting very very difficult," Mr Ritchie says.

    "Managers out driving, workshop staff driving, I've been driving myself this morning."

    Mr Ritchie says the driver shortage is making it increasingly difficult to put on enough buses for big events - like the recent Adele concerts.

    "Lots of different companies and AT (Auckland Transport) got involved with assisting that. But certainly going forward it's going to be harder and harder to staff them."

    It's a national issue, but in Auckland it's expected to have the biggest impact.

    "Our urban operators would be at least 120 bus drivers short, as they roll out new services in Auckland this year we expect this to roll out to 200," Bus and Coach Association CEO Barry Kidd says.

    The Bus and Coach Association says immigration rules are making it even tougher.

    Around a third of driver are from overseas - many are on temporary work visas.

    "What we're seeing is Immigration New Zealand not renewing these visas, drivers resigning from positions, creating another vacancy, which we're struggling to fill," Mr Kidd says.

    Immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse says bus drivers aren't part of the skilled migrants category and that's not going to change.

    "If it can be demonstrated that there are New Zealanders available to do that job or be trained to do that job, it is possible that those temporary visas won't be renewed and those workers would be required to return to their home countries."

    But for Mr Ritchie, finding local drivers is easier said than done.

    Companies have been working with the Ministry of Social development to train unemployed people, but they say that won't fix the shortage - they want Immigration New Zealand to help.

    This article was originally sourced from Newshub here and was written by Mitch McCann. 

  • 30 May 2017 1:15 PM | Kerrie Green (Administrator)

    Australia’s fastest growing housing markets have been revealed in the HIA’s latest Population & Residential Building Hotspots 2017 report published today.

    This year’s HIA Population & Residential Hotspots 2017 report identifies Pimpama in Queensland as Australia’s Number One housing Hotspot based on its performance during 2015/16. In second place was Sydney’s Cobbitty-Leppington area followed by Palmerston-South in the NT in third place. The national Top 20 is summarised in the table below.

    “With 2016 representing a record year for new home building activity across Australia, the housing industry has been supporting economic activity in localities up and down the country. The good news on housing is not confined to the major capital cities – today’s report shows that regional Australia is also peppered with housing Hotspots,” commented HIA Senior Economist Shane Garrett.

    “In terms of its economic contribution, the housing industry is truly unique. Today’s report identifies 86 separate areas in every state and territory across Australia where residential building activity is acting as the engine of economic activity, employment and development. Small businesses are particular beneficiaries of housing activity,” concluded Shane Garrett.

    The HIA Population & Residential Hotspots 2017 report provides a ranking of Australia’s top 20 Hotspots:

    • Nine of the Top 20 Hotspots are located in New South Wales;
    • Victoria contains four of the national Top 20;
    • Three of the country’s top Hotspots are in Queensland;
    • Western Australia and the Northern Territory each contain two major Hotspots;
    • South Australia and Tasmania each contain five housing Hotspots;
    • A further nine Hotspots are located in the ACT.

    Nationally, an area qualifies as a Hotspot if its population grew by more than the 1.4 per cent national average during 2015/16 and at least $150 million worth of residential building was approved during the year.

    For further information please contact:

    Shane Garrett, Senior Economist 0450 783 603

    Warwick Temby, Acting Chief Economist 0407 692 241

    For copies of the publication (media only) please contact: Kirsten Lewis on

    Statistical area

    Residential building approved 2015/16

    Annual population growth rate

    1. Pimpama, QLD



    2. Cobbitty-Leppington, NSW



    3. Palmerston-South, NT



    4. Riverstone-Marsden Park, NSW



    5. Forrestdale-Harrisdale-Piara Waters, WA



    6. Docklands, Vic



    7. Homebush Bay-Silverwater, NSW



    8. Ellenbrook, WA



    9. Southbank, Vic



    10. Waterloo-Beaconsfield, NSW



    11. North Lakes-Mango Hill, QLD



    12. Elderslie-Harrington Park, NSW



    13. Lyons, NT



    14. Rouse Hill-Beaumont Hills, NSW



    15. Newstead-Bowen Hills, QLD



    16. Arncliffe-Bardwell Valley, NSW



    17. South Yarra-East, Vic



    18. Botany, NSW



    19. Melbourne, Vic



    20. Ingleburn-Denham Court, NSW



    This media release was directly sourced from the Housing Industry Association's website here

  • 30 May 2017 12:36 PM | Kerrie Green (Administrator)

    A group of contenders is beginning to emerge to head the Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA) after the announcement current CEO Sunita Gloster will head to Ten for a senior commercial and strategy role in August. Simon Canning looks at who's in the running. 

    The global hunt is underway for the new head of the AANA at a time when the industry faces major structural reform after Sunita Gloster announced her move to the broadcaster just a week ago.

    Recruiters Hourigan International – which placed Gloster in the role originally – are understood to be seeking a mix of experience at CMO, MD or CEO level with a strong background in compliance and dealing with regulatory issues.

    Gloster took the reins of the AANA in 2013 at a point when the association was seen as a closed boys’ club that was failing to tackle major issues facing the advertising industry.

    During her tenure she increased the scope of the industry’s self regulation and began to use it as a platform to question major industry issues such as ad fraud and viewability, while increasing membership by more then 50 members.

    Gloster also launched the AANA’s annual Reset conference bringing celebrities such as Monika Lewinsky to Australia and launched a regular marketing-focused show on Sky News.

    The rise of the AANA also came with competitive tensions as the Australian Data Marketing Association (ADMA) broadened its scope and competed for members under the stewardship of Jodie Sangster, who has also increased the industry body’s membership exponentially.

    While the brief for Gloster was to rebuild the AAANA, the new CEO will face a range of significant challenges including the continued questions about transparency and the rise of programmatic buying.

    Another major issue the new AANA leader will face will be the impact of media reforms on the advertising market, with mergers and acquisitions expected to concentrate media ownership.

    Maintaining the viability of self-regulation in an increasingly deregulated market will be another challenge along with the role of advertising in protecting the future of journalism.

    Challenging the duopoly of Facebook and Google in digital media is expected to be another major issue the association will have to tackle on behalf of its members which, ironically, includes Google.

    With a fairly thinly layered executive team, the replacement for Gloster is expected to be an external appointment, although there are a couple of possible contenders for the role who would allow the organisation a level of continuity in leadership.

    Internally the most likely candidate is Simone Brandon, the AANA’s director of policy and legal affairs.

    Brandon joined the AANA in 2014 and has been in charge of developing the the association’s road map for future regulation.

    While her background is firmly rooted in legal, her previous roles as deputy general counsel and head of the marketing and communications teams with Vodafone Australia deliver the background the could be a strong foundation for the next stage of the AANA’s evolution.

    Her skills could prove particularly advantageous if the impact of media reforms on the industry become a major focus. At the same time her affinity with emerging technologies could also come into play.

    However, sources close to the AANA have signalled that the appointment is more likely to be an external one with a number of serious contenders currently between assignments.

    One major contender could have been Inese Kingsmill, former head of marketing at Telstra, a former chairperson of the AANA and a close confidant of Gloster. However Kingsmill’s recent appointment as CMO of Virgin Australia has taken her out of the mix before the job vacancy was even announced.

    John Broome, former marketing lead with FMCG giants Unilever, Kellogg’s, Nestle and Goodman Fielder, is emerging as the contender with the biggest potential.

    Broome has remained close to the AANA as a board member of the Advertising Standards Bureau.

    Currently working as a consultant after leaving Unilever in the wake of a restructure in March, Broome would bring a broad level of experience to the role, with a particular understanding of the pressures facing FMCG businesses and those marketing food products – one of the flash-points of self-regulation when it comes to food advertising and children.

    Broome has also been outspoken, warning marketers not to fear the challenges of connecting with millennials who value“authenticity” and “transparency” which were becoming keys to building a brand.

    Sophie Madden, currently CEO of the Media Federation of Australia, is another strong candidate for the role.

    Madden has been at the helm of the MFA for more than four years, but boasts a strong pedigree having previously held roles including marketing services head for Kraft Foods, global head of media for Vodafone Enterprise and media director for Unilever.

    Madden was the first CEO of the MFA and during her stint she has worked to raise the profile of the organisation.

    Over that time the MFA has set policies to deal with transparency in an era where the industry was rocked by major reporting scandals and the revelations some agencies were running value banks.

    She has also put in place programs to address massive staff churn in the industry – a project which is ongoing – and her experience running an industry body would allow her to slip seamlessly into the role.

    Sue Zerk, marketing director at 20th Century Fox, is another possible starter in the race.

    Zerk has been with the entertainment company for more than a decade and has been a regular contributor to the AANA.

    Her passion for the association matched with her understanding of its operations could see her as one of the front-running replacements for Gloster if she puts her hand up.

    From the department of unlikely-long-shots ADMA’s CEO Sangster has reinvented what was formerly known as the Australian Direct Marketing Association into a dynamic and multi-faceted organisation.

    A move to the AANA could be seen as a natural progression by some, with her experience working with major advertisers and handling tough regulatory issues. She has also raised the possibility of industry association mergers in the past.

    However, Sangster has also invested heavily in ADMA and may not see her job as ‘mission accomplished’ yet.

    Another big name who could be a consideration is former Pacific Brands boss Sue Morphet. Now juggling a number of directorships, Morphet would come to the role with a clear understanding of the needs of the membership and has been an effective agent of change in her past roles.

    However, mitigating Morphet’s potential candidacy would be her love for Melbourne and the fact she has a number of board positions which she would be unlikely to want to give up.

    Gloster leaves her role for new pastures at Ten in August, but the search could go beyond that date.

    Whoever steps up to lead the advertiser advocate in its next stage could face one of the most challenging periods in the organisation’s history.

    Not since the Federal Court scrapped the advertising industry accreditation system in the mid 1990s has the AANA faced new challenges on such a scale.

    Just who gets what will be a very public-facing job will be a clear pointer as to how Australia’s advertisers aim to tackle the new era of media reform and digital development.

    This article was directly sourced from Mumbrella here and was written by Simon Canning. 

    Simon Canning

    Simon is Mumbrella's marketing and advertising editor. In a career spanning journalism and communications over more than 30 years Simon has become one of Australia’s most respected analysts and commentators on the advertising, marketing and media industries. A regular commentator on radio and TV, Simon has also worked in media in the US and UK .

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software