- Ongoing delivery of quality events
- Talent development pathways that produce world champions
- Education programmes and pathways
- Effective leadership, governance and management
- Financial sustainability
- Effective stakeholder relationships
- Community level development and delivery


What changes, if any, would you like to see in the organisation?

To be eligible for High Performance funding and be able to fund a Development Officer.


Surfing New Zealand as a going concern:

Note 4 in your 2008 financial statement filed with the Companies Office indicates SNZ has an acute going concern issue which is tied directly to sponsorship.  Is the current financial position of SNZ sound?  Please provide justification for your view.

As is the nature of corporate funding of various sporting bodies funding is generally of a short-term or year by year commitment. Surfing New Zealand’s funding is no different in that contracts are generally renewable yearly.  Secondly extra-ordinary expenses relating to legal fees were incurred in the 2008 year.  These legal fees related to the action brought against Surfing New Zealand by Surfing Taranaki.  An early indication from the auditors have indicated that at this preliminary stage of the 2009 audit this provision will not be required in the 2009 Financial Statements.  This is not an unusual note required by auditors for similar organisations.

Our forecast budget is strong and healthy for the coming year.


Brent Robinson of Lion Nathan has said it has not renewed its sponsorship contract with SNZ.  He said a $150,000 sponsorship offer was made to SNZ, but this was amicably rejected.  Why did you choose to reject the sponsorship offer?

Firstly it was not a $150,000 offer; the total package we discussed with Lion Nathan was quite a bit lower than that however it is inappropriate for us to discuss with any party, including journalists, the actual numbers we discussed in our sponsorship negotiations.

The contract agreement we had in place with Lion Nathan had expired and we were presented with new options. The Board and Management of Surfing New Zealand evaluated and carefully considered Lion Nathan’ sponsorship with Surfing New Zealand for a twelve month period following the conclusion of the current contract agreement.  As Lion Nathan freely admitted, their total sponsorship offer was a considerable distance from the partnership sponsorship package which Lion Nathan and SNZ had been working to in recent years, however we do appreciate that the current recessionary climate gives Lion Nathan cause to evaluate the properties they support. 

Surfing New Zealand highly valued the excellent association with Lion Nathan that we have jointly grown over recent years.  The reality though of a significant reduction of overall promotional/sponsorship income to Surfing New Zealand forced our organisation to consider additional or alternate sources of sponsorship which in the past were not looked at.

As a sport our participation numbers continue to grow, our event schedule, particularly in the next 12 months, is packed.  As a national body we feel we are on the up as opposed to being a sunset sport.  These positives have caught the imagination of a new sponsor, and while in the past these entreaties would have been rejected out of hand, the large reduction in sponsorship support Lion Nathan’ had put on the table for the next 12 months meant it is incumbent on our Board as elected national representatives to explore any and all alternatives.

In this light, a recent approach by a potential sponsor to SNZ, which incorporates a number of the benefits that Lion Nathan’ had chosen to relinquish and which has an initial three-year life, was placed before our Board.  This approach has a cash and promotional support value which is currently more than twice the value of the proposal Lion Nathan’ tabled.  Under the terms of our contract arrangement, Surfing New Zealand offered Lion Nathan the opportunity to match or counter the offer we had received and Lion Nathan chose not to take the opportunity to match the offer and as such, we ended our formal relationship.

Surfing New Zealand and Lion Nathan have enjoyed an honest, open partnership arrangement and both parties agreed that the relationship has been nothing but positive over the past 8 years.

The above confirms that the SNZ Board has taken the appropriate steps to ensure the sport of surfing’s code body has the ability to continue to promote both recreational and competition surfing to the best of their ability in the next few years.


Lion Nathan has provided half or more of SNZ’s sponsorship income for years.  How do you plan on replacing this income?

As above, plus we are always talking to potential supporters and sponsors as would be expected from a sport that can claim 140,000 active participants.


Has that income been replaced in whole, or in part?

As above. We plan to announce further details of this arrangement shortly.


Is SNZ’s future financial health in jeopardy?

Surfing is a growing sport with ever increasing requirements for funding.  The organisation continues to seek both new and existing sources of funding so that the sport and its increasing requirements can continue to grow.  SNZ’s future financial health is not in jeopardy.


Lion Nathan had also been steadily reducing its sponsorship of SNZ since at least 2005.  Do you know why this is the case?

The motivations and actions of Lion Nathan can only be commented on with any authority by Lion Nathan, however we must point out that Lion Nathan is not the only sponsor that Surfing New Zealand enjoys a successful working arrangement with.

Earlier this year the Association of Surfing Professionals started an investigation into SNZ over unpaid exhibition fees.  What was the outcome of this dispute?

This is actually quite incorrect and we fear you have been fed misinformation.  Surfing New Zealand was not involved in a official dispute with the ASP and Surfing New Zealand have not received any communication from ASP in regards to this matter.


The 2010 World Junior Championships

This is clearly a good opportunity for Surfing New Zealand and for the sport in this country, but I understand the estimated cost of running this event is $1 million.  How will SNZ fund this endeavour?

The $1m budget is entirely in line with the cost of staging these events around the world.  This event will bring 250 of the world’s best young surfers from over 30 countries to Auckland and it is the first time in over a quarter of a century that the ISA will hold an event of this magnitude in the Australasia zone.  The event has support from Quiksilver International, Tourism New Zealand, SPARC, Auckland City Council, Waitakere City Council, Tourism Auckland, SkyCity, Hyundai Motors NZ and Mondo Travel.

The event will be funded in a combination of international and local sponsorship and central and local government funding.  It is not appropriate to publically discuss these finance sources while some discussions with our partners are ongoing, however it would be great if you could give all these supporters a plug.


Assuming lines of funding have been secured, could you please provide the sources and value of funding achieved so far?

Unfortunately we are not able to provide these confidential details at this point in time while some discussion is still ongoing.  We would expect the Independent to respect this situation particularly in relation to our partners.


SNZ Governance

The 2008 court case illustrated some divisions within the organisation over constitution interpretation.  Comments made by the SNZ executive indicated legal advice on the matter showed proxy voting was allowed, though Justice Fogarty contradicted that view in his judgment.  Was this an unexpected or unwelcome outcome?

There was no division within the organisation as Surfing New Zealand was of the opinion that it was operating fully under the rules of its Constitution.  There was division from a disgruntled group who planned to stand candidates for board positions and as one of them stated in the press at that time, to “take over the executive of Surfing New Zealand”.

We are grateful that Justice Fogerty provided clarity around interpretations of the SNZ Constitution in relation to proxy voting and we enacted his recommended changes at the first opportunity.  We feel SNZ is constitutionally sound and we have had this verified by a number of different legal sources.


How have amendments passed in the latest constitution addressed the issues brought up by Justice Fogarty?

In conjunction with SPARC and our legal team, we have updated our Constitution to current best practice.  Please refer above.  SNZ is grateful for the clarity we have now in this area as a result of the advice from Justice Fogerty.


A critic has complained the environmental voice that Surfing New Zealand should have has been silenced in the latest constitution.  What is your response?

At our Special General Meeting held 29 August 2009 to rescind the exiting SNZ Constitution and adopt the proposed new SNZ Constitution, discussion took place and the members agreed on the following Resolution. “That the SNZ Board prepares an environmental policy review, and updates all current Policies for publication prior to the AGM”.  This policy has been completed and approved by the Board and will be distribute to all the clubs shortly.  SNZ is committed to preserving the environment and can discharge that responsibility by way of affiliation with and or support of all manner of kindred organisations to that end.  As an NSO (National Sporting Organisation) how much SNZ resources are members prepared to commit to environment issues over core sport activities?  The active engagement function is best dealt with by specialist organisations that can capture that wider community.


The judgment also notes Ben Kennings – whom I understand is an employee of SNZ – was allowed to vote in proxy for Tairua Boardriders.  This has been pointed to as an example of undue interference of the board by management.  That is, an employee should never have been allowed to be in a position to vote for his own bosses.  What is your response to this accusation?

Written authorisation was provided by Tairua Boardriders club prior to the meeting as was permitted under the then SNZ Constitution and this authorisation did not require Mr Kennings to be a member of the club, nor was he precluded from working for SNZ.  Justice Fogarty gave us clarity around the interpretation of the voting procedure under the Rules and this will now enable the next election to be conducted following a clearly defined process.


I have been told New Zealand surfers, such as those travelling to competitions overseas, are not given financial support by SNZ.  Is this a priority for the organisation?

Yes it is.  SNZ applies for funding through community support organisations and trusts for every New Zealand team, and have been successful in obtaining some measure of contributions towards team costs for the past 15 years.  We are a categorised as participation sport therefore we get no high performance funding from SPARC.  Not surprisingly, we do not have many local sponsors willing to financially contribute to send teams overseas when their dollars could be utilised in NZ.


A critic says the management has been slow to implement desired changes and is ineffective compared to similar sporting organisations.  What is your response?

Every organisation will have its critics.  Broader research on your part would show that your critic is part of a very small minority.  That would be backed up by voting numbers at the most recent AGM held in 2008. We also question the ability of you, our ‘critic’ or indeed anyone not directly involved in running a national sporting body to arrive at the statement you make above.