Bizarre response

Air New Zealand chairman Tony Carter needs a refresher course on what an ‘‘activist shareholder’’ is, and why it is always good for a company to be held to account by all its shareholders.

His reaction to criticism from Shane Jones was prickly and thin skinned. It was also wrong from the perspective of corporate governance, and, one would argue, media relations. It’s surely a sign of systemic issues at an organisation for the chairman of a publicly listed company to publish such a bizarre and kneejerk response.

It should also concern nonCrown investors that the chairman should single out its largest shareholder as being unwise to exercise any fiduciary rights – in case it upsets others? Really? Another refresher course to suggest: ‘‘Moral hazard’’.

While abandoning a particular route may ultimately be solved by another airline, Air New Zealand’s wider contempt for all nonAuckland services needs to be checked.

Its opposition to Wellington Airport’s runway extension was unnecessary, self-serving, but more importantly a structural play to permanently disable airline competition to New Zealand’s second largest metropolitan area.

That’s a clear example of corporate activity that needs to be stopped. While Shane Jones’ tactics may be brutal, the spirit in which they are made is not. There is a precedence from Air New Zealand that has resulted in his actions. GARETH SUTCLIFFE Wellington Central