Auckland mayor's top executive liquidating personal firm owing $570k
Brown's chief of staff Jaswant Sailendra Singh (Jazz) called in the liquidators on June 4, for his property development company Traxx Investments Limited.
The first report by liquidators Steven Knov and Kieran Jones, dated June 11, shows Traxx has no assets, and its sole creditor, listed as preferential is Inland Revenue with the sum of $569,739.
A spokesman for the mayor said in a statement provided to Newsroom at the weekend that Brown 'has never heard of Traxx Investments nor has he received any advice about Jazz Singh's involvement with this company.'
Singh told Newsroom his employer, Auckland Council, was not aware of the liquidation, which he described as 'unrelated altogether' to his work there.
He said the existence of his business interest had been declared to the council, but not the liquidation.
Asked about the circumstances leading to the liquidation, he said 'I don't plan on talking to you about that.'
He said the liquidation was a voluntary thing which his advisors had told him to do.
In the liquidators' first report it said 'the liquidators have been advised that the reason for the failure of the company, which led to the appointment of the liquidators, is due to the company having insufficient assets to satisfy its liabilities.'
The report said they had yet to receive a claim from Inland Revenue.
Singh is the chief of staff in the mayor's office, and technically an Auckland Council staffer. Photo: Auckland Mayor's office
The role of chief of staff is the most senior position in the Auckland mayor's office and Singh has travelled overseas on occasions with Brown, and is one of the lead officials in discussions with the government and external entities. For example, one push by Auckland and other councils is to convince the central government to return a share of GST to local government.
Singh, previously a solicitor, has held senior management roles at Auckland Council for 14 years, and has been in the mayor's office for most of this term.
He was initially the head of Budget and Finance for the mayor, and became chief of staff in June 2024. Previously he had held roles in the council as general manager of procurement, head of risk, and manager of property and commercial legal services.
Singh is the sole director, and co-owner of Traxx Development Limited, and Traxx Property Investments Limited, with Companies Office records showing the other shareholder in both as Paul Michael Davies.
When Singh was made chief or staff, Brown was full of praise on Facebook:
'I'm pleased to announce that Jazz Singh will be my new chief of staff.
'As well as being a strong family man and a father of six, he's got strong business smarts and will be the first finance person in the role since the formation of the super city.
'Jazz is my current head of finance and budget and has played a key part in my long-term plan. He's well placed to deliver on my manifesto, bring the CCOs into line and stop wasting money!
'I'm glad he's agreed to lead my office's strong and capable team.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
17 hours ago
- Scoop
Auckland Council Spends $14.4 Million On Colin Dale Park Facility
The Auckland Ratepayers' Alliance can reveal through a Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act request, more than $14,393,977 has been spend by Auckland Council on the Colin Dale Park development since 2014. While the facility was initially presented as a motorsport facility that would be funded through the Colin Dale Park Kartsport Development Charitable Trust, ratepayers have ended up paying tens of millions towards earthworks, drainage, power, and more. Auckland Ratepayers' Alliance spokesman Sam Warren said: 'What was meant to be a club-led effort has turned out to be a $14 million dollar white elephant funded by Auckland ratepayers. Where's the accountability on this?' 'Ratepayers should not be funding infrastructure for private organisations – virtually everything but the track itself looks to have been paid for by hardworking ratepayers that will never use it.' 'Auckland Council had already contributed $2.8 million from a local board grant in 2014, and then followed through with another $2.5 million last year. Now that we've exposed the real number for exceeding $14 million, you have to wonder where this all stops?" "No more blank cheques for white elephants. Auckland Council has no business funding private endeavours that should stand on their own two-feet.'
Newsroom
17 hours ago
- Newsroom
Climate Commission delivers inconvenient truths to Govt
Analysis: Climate policy is in many ways one of the most wickedly complex areas of government. The workings of the Emissions Trading Scheme, aligning scientific findings about difference greenhouse gases or climate impacts with policy design and even just measuring emissions from a cow can all be embroiled in subjective, heated debates. On occasion, though, it can be as simple as basic arithmetic. That's where the Climate Change Commission has landed with its progress report on the Government's climate policies, released early Friday before markets opened. Chief executive Jo Hendy tells Newsroom it's the commission's first chance to 'run the ruler' over the Government's climate plan, released in December. It's only the second-ever progress report, with last year's version having mostly evaluated then-cancelled Labour policies because the Government hadn't yet announced its own approach. While a lot of complex analysis underpins the independent watchdog's findings, the headline information is the result of a simple adding up exercise that effectively cuts through the Government's spin on how ambitious its climate plan really is. New Zealand is on track to meet the first five-yearly emissions budget – here, the commission agrees with the Government. The rest of the picture looks far less rosy. For the second budget, covering 2026 to 2030, there are moderate to significant delivery risks – and much greater ones than featured in last year's report. The Government's own projections leave it with just a couple million tonnes of headroom, which could easily be wiped out by a dry year prompting the burning of Huntly's coal stockpile, a wildfire or big storm destroying a large enough forestry block or the failure of the already shaky carbon capture policy. The real concern comes for the third budget and the 2050 net zero target, where again the delivery risks have grown. 'Current plans are insufficient to meet the third budget and further action is required. There are also significant risks for meeting the 2050 target unless further action is taken,' the commission writes. The Government's projections show it still has to cut emissions by over nine million tonnes over the third budget period. While Climate Change Minister Simon Watts says the Government will sort out how to do so in its third emissions reduction plan in 2029 (a point by which he also presumably hopes to no longer be responsible for sorting that out), the commission says that leaves it too late. Watts' current climate plan cuts emissions by just 3.3 million tonnes in the second budget period and he's already pretty confident that's everything the Government can do. (The commission, for what it's worth, has found tens of millions of tonnes of additional cuts that a sufficiently motivated government could implement.) How, then, is a future government to nearly triple that total with a plan in 2029? 'The Government needs to act ahead of the next emissions reduction plan (due in 2029) as many options that would make a difference will take time to take effect. For example, New Zealand Steel's electric arc furnace took three years to progress from funding approval to operation,' the commission insists. Fortunately, the commission finds there are significant opportunities for the Government to make up the difference if it starts now. There are nearly 20 million tonnes of cuts New Zealand could achieve in the third budget period through fixing up the Emissions Trading Scheme and implementing additional targeted policies. Agricultural and power generation emissions alone could fall by enough to plug the gap through regulatory reforms and incentives for uptakes of new technologies. 'This isn't just about hitting a number on an emissions reduction target, it's also about doing it well so that we cut energy costs, create those new jobs, protect market access and ultimately it's about our competitiveness and resilience as a country – as well as making that better future for our kids,' Hendy says. The ball is now in Watts' court, but don't expect him to do much with it. The commission returns repeatedly in this report to another issue that Watts is sitting on: Whether the budgets actually need to be revised to be more ambitious, as it recommended last year. In brief, the commission found last year that accounting changes for how we measure the emissions of cows, cars and other greenhouse gas sources mean it will now be easier to meet the budgets. Those changes don't represent real action New Zealand has taken. If we wanted to preserve the original ambition the budgets represented when they were set in 2022, the commission reported, we would need to revise them downwards. Because those new recommended budgets are still on Watts' desk, the majority of the commission's report today checks progress against the existing targets. However, it does also note at points how much additional effort would be needed to meet its recommended budgets. For the second emissions budget, that would be another 15 million tonnes of cuts over the second half of the 2020s. For the third budget, another 18 million tonnes on top of that. Collectively, the revisions represent about half of New Zealand's annual gross emissions – or more than 30 times the reductions the Government claims will arise from its carbon capture policy. While there are some subjective inputs to these calculations by the commission, the bulk of it comes down to hard maths. Or, as Watts might label it, an inconvenient truth.
RNZ News
19 hours ago
- RNZ News
Butter wars: 'Nothing cures high prices like high prices' - but will market forces be enough?
By Alan Renwick of A key factor driving butter prices in New Zealand is that 95 percent of the country's dairy production is exported. Photo: Monika Grabkowska for Unsplash Analysis - The alarming rise of butter prices has become a real source of frustration for New Zealand consumers, as well as a topic of political recrimination. The issue has become so serious that chief executive of dairy co-operative Fonterra Miles Hurrell was summoned to meetings with the government and opposition parties this week. After meeting Hurrell, Finance Minister Nicola Willis appeared to place some of the blame for the high price of butter on supermarkets rather than on the dairy giant. According to Stats NZ, butter prices rose by 46.5 percent in the year to June and are now 120 percent higher than a decade ago. The average price for a 500g block is NZ$8.60, with some local brands costing over $10. But solving the problem is not a matter of waving a magic economic wand. Several factors influence butter prices, few of which can be altered directly by government policy. And the question remains - would we want to? Proposals such as reducing exports to boost domestic supply, or cutting goods and services tax (GST) on dairy products, all carry consequences. A key factor driving butter prices in New Zealand is that 95 percent of the country's dairy production is exported. Limited domestic supply and strong global demand have pushed up prices for a range of commodities - not just milk, but beef as well. These increases are reflected in local retail prices. Another contributing factor is rising costs along the supply chain. At the farm level, producers are receiving record prices for dairy. But this comes at a time when input costs have also increased significantly. It is not all profit. Before changing rules around dairy exports, the government must weigh the broader consequences. On the one hand, high milk prices benefit "NZ Inc". The dairy sector accounts for 25 percent of exports and employs 55,000 New Zealanders. When farmers do well, the wider rural economy benefits - with flow-on effects for the country as a whole. On the other hand, there is the ongoing challenge of domestic food security. Many people cannot afford basic groceries and foodbank use is rising. So how can New Zealand maintain a food system that benefits from exports while also supporting struggling domestic consumers? One option is to remove GST from food. Other countries exempt dairy products from such taxes in an effort to make staples more affordable. This idea has been repeatedly reviewed and rejected - including by the 2018 Tax Working Group. In 2024, it was estimated that removing GST could cost the government between $3.3bn and $3.9bn, with only modest benefits for the average household. Another route would be to examine Fonterra's dominance in the supply chain. There are advantages to having a strong global player. And it is not in the national interest for the company to incur losses on domestic sales. Still, the structure of the market may warrant scrutiny. For a long time there were just two main suppliers of processed dairy products - Fonterra and Goodman Fielder - and two main retailers - Foodstuffs and Woolworths. This set up reduced the need to compete on prices. While there is arguably more competition in manufacturing sector now, supermarkets are still under scrutiny and have long faced criticism for a lack of competition. The opaque nature of the profit margins across the supply chain also fuels suspicion. Consumers know what they pay at the checkout and what farmers receive. But the rest is less clear. This lack of transparency invites speculation about who benefits from soaring prices. In the end, though, the government may not need to act at all. As economists like to say: "Nothing cures high prices like high prices." While demand for butter is relatively inelastic, there comes a point at which consumers reduce their purchases or seek alternatives. International buyers will also push back - and falling global demand may redirect more supply to domestic markets. High prices also act as a signal to producers across the globe to increase production, which could happen relatively quickly if there are favourable climatic and other conditions. We only need to look back to 2014, when the price of dairy dropped by 48 percent over the course of 12 months due to reduced demand and increased supply, to see how quickly the situation can change. This story originally appeared in the Conversation .
