industrial relations
Submitted by Joe Hendren on Fri, 14/11/2008 - 9:01am.
Body: A man with 43 years service is one of 60 employees to be axed from LWR International's Christchurch factory. Roy Williams, 58, said the mood was grim, not just for himself as "the longest server", but for his workmates with young families and mortgages.
Some were eyeing Australia for jobs, he said. He remembers the "glory days" when the Rudkin family owners of clothing-based LWR would reward employees on a Saturday with fish and chips and drinks, and when "it was a joy to come to work".
Things had tightened considerably under successive owners of the Sydenham factory, including Brierley Investments, American David Teece and now Ken Anderson.
But yesterday things got considerably tighter for Williams, who was told he will finish in the textile operations two days before Christmas. His wife died a couple of years ago, leaving him to care for a daughter, now 10. "We all got our letters just five minutes ago with a termination date on it," he said at the site. "It's just sad. It's the young ones I feel sorry for." He had already explored other work options, but said younger skilled workers were considering moving to Australia. Fourteen staff finished yesterday.
LWR chief executive Malcolm Walkinshaw said the business case for merino, polyester and other textile-making to be based in Otara, Auckland, rather than Sydenham was compelling. "We simply couldn't afford to operate duplicate textile plants in both locations. In the end, we chose Auckland because of that site's greater throughput and its space for future expansion," he said.
While the move was not prompted by the financial climate, the recent world downturn had left business leaders around New Zealand worried about the economic outlook, Walkinshaw said.
Unions fear the LWR cuts could be the beginning of a series of redundancies at small to large firms around New Zealand, with Christchurch having already seen jobs lost at G.L. Bowron, Skellerup, Dynamic Controls, Click Clack, Tip Top and Feltex.
Walkinshaw said Christchurch would retain a major manufacturing presence.
LWR have about 240 employees in Christchurch after the 60 lay-offs that will be staggered through to the first quarter of next year.
National Distribution Union organiser Kaelene Churton said there were a few others with nearly the same length of LWR service as Williams, and many other reliable workers of 20 or 30 years. "The impact that it has on people's lives for them it's going to be life-changing."
Submitted by Joe Hendren on Wed, 27/08/2008 - 12:00am.
Body: New Zealand businesses often have a tough time competing against larger Australian rivals.
Our corporate history is littered with failed New Zealand attempts to break into the Australian market, while large Australian companies have done well here, often buying and running dominant companies in New Zealand and increasing their profits.
The Warehouse, Telecom and Air New Zealand are the most recent examples of our corporate failures across the Tasman. Only Michael Hill comes to mind as a success.
Australian-owned media companies Fairfax (the owner of Stuff, TradeMe and the former INL chain of newspapers), APN (New Zealand Herald) and the banks (ASB, ANZ, BNZ, Westpac and National) have all done extraordinarily well since buying into New Zealand, particularly over the last five years as they profited from dominant positions in a relatively fast-growing economy.
So most assumed that when Woolworths bought the Progressive supermarket operation in 2005 it would monster the apparently outdated cooperative structure of New Zealand’s Foodstuffs operation.
There was plenty of swagger in Woolworths’ early approach in New Zealand. It flexed its muscles as a massive purchaser to drive down prices and margins for suppliers in new “Trans-Tasman” bulk purchasing arrangements. This made a lot of local suppliers very grumpy and lost it an enormous amount of goodwill with the supplier community. New Zealand is still a small place and many have not forgotten these tough negotiating tactics.
Then in August and September of 2006 Woolworths locked out workers at its Palmerston North distribution centre for almost a month to show them who was boss after they went on strike for fairer and higher pay. After a couple of weeks, gaps began to appear on shelves. Customers joined the queue of grumpy parties, alongside workers and suppliers. Eventually Woolworths settled, but the damage to its reputation was significant with customers used to well-stocked shelves.
This early robust approach may well have worked in Australia, but it just got a lot of people’s backs up here. There is definitely a difference in business cultures between New Zealand and Australia. New Zealand managers tend to be more consensual and less confrontational than those in Australia. They don’t like criticising rivals and tend to be much more careful before deciding to “burn” a supplier or rival or union.
Australian business leaders tend to be more brash, more willing to criticise rivals and debate issues publicly. Their approach is much more about a good stoush and a beer afterwards. Here we’re a little more reticent. There’s something about our national character which is more conservative and unwilling to confront rivals. We try to avoid open confrontation if we can. That means we can sometimes get monstered in negotiations.
This, of course, is a crass generalisation, but many New Zealanders would recognise it. I worked in Australia as a business journalist for five years and found it a much easier place to report business issues because leaders there are more direct and uncompromising, although ultimately had a more outward-looking and more optimistic view of the future. I admire it, but I know it’s different.
Toll Holdings is still patting itself on the back for the amazingly high price it managed to extract from a vote-hungry Labour-led government after years of arm twisting. People I talk to in Australia still can’t believe our government rolled over for this price. They just chuckle and count the money.
So the failure of Woolworths to win the battle with Foodstuffs is unusual. We like to beat the Australians in any battle and this win is particularly sweet.
Woolworths expected to “turn around” the business it bought for NZ$2.5 billion within three years by bringing in the Woolworths Australia model of using massive purchasing power and highly centralised distribution systems to pass on lower costs to customers while increasing margins.
Yet the three years is nearly up and the business, which includes the Foodtown, Countdown and Woolworths chains, is seeing its sales growth and profit margins dropping.
Figures from JP Morgan analyst Shaun Cousins show that Woolworths’ market share has dropped to 43% from 45% in New Zealand, while Foodstuffs’ share has risen to 57% in the last couple of years.
Woolworths’ results for the financial year released on Tuesday lay bare the scale of the failure in New Zealand.
Woolworths’ profit margin (earnings before interest and tax to sales) in New Zealand actually fell 4 basis points to 4.19% and its overall profit growth was up only 6.4%. This compared with 18.8% profit growth and a 5.52% profit margin in the Australian supermarkets.
So Woolworths is a full 133 basis points less profitable in New Zealand than in Australia. That may not sound a lot but for a tight-margin, high-volume business like groceries this is a big deal. Comparable sales growth (after taking into account the different number of weeks in the financial years) fell to 3.5% in the fourth quarter of the 2008 financial year from 9.9% in the first quarter.
This is shockingly weak when overall supermarket and grocery sales reported by Statistics New Zealand rose 5.3% in the June quarter from the same quarter a year ago. Woolworths itself said food price inflation ran at 4.6% for the year so a 3.5% rise actually implies a fall in volumes.
Foodstuffs, which owns the Pak’nSave, New World and Four Square chains, is winning the battle.
So what went wrong for Woolworths and right for Foodstuffs?
Woolworths’ robust approach to heavying suppliers and workers was not popular, but the problems run deeper. Woolworths believed it could make significant gains by imposing a centralised distribution system on Progressive and introduced big “Homebrand” ranges that are made under contract for Woolworths. It is also rolling out its own Select, Naytura, Organics and Freefrom brands for various specialist foods.
This sounds like a good idea, but other suppliers get nervous when the supermarket chain starts stocking and promoting its own brands in precious shelf space at the expense of real brands. Suppliers also seem to prefer Foodstuffs’ decentralised approach in New Zealand where the supermarket is itself the warehouse (stack ‘em high and sell ‘em cheap).
It’s easier to take the supplies direct from the factory to the supermarket than to some intermediate depot. Suppliers also like dealing direct with supermarket managers rather than with warehouse managers. It means they’re one step closer to the customer.
The latest clash between New Zealand suppliers and Woolworths was revealed last month by The Independent. Woolworths wanted to penalise suppliers who were selling goods on discount through Foodstuffs at the same time as through Woolworths. It’s no surprise suppliers don’t love Woolworths.
There’s also something more fundamental going on. Foodstuffs is essentially a collection of owner-operated supermarkets who share purchasing and marketing costs, but are often fiercely independent and “local” in their approach.
That means the individual supermarket owners are intensely motivated to run good supermarkets because they keep the profits and tend to guess right what the population around their supermarkets wants to buy.
The corporatised Woolworths model has lots of employees but not many owners.
The final (and probably key) factor is Foodstuffs’ dominance in the discount grocery area. Pak’nSave has become The Warehouse and TradeMe of the grocery world all wrapped into one. It is cheap and cheerful with great ranges.
That’s what New Zealanders want right now. We are feeling the pain from higher food and fuel prices and want to find a bargain whenever we can. Pak’n'Save is simply bigger and better at it than Woolworth’s Countdown brand, as can be seen in this report from The Press.
Woolworths is trying to turn this around by converting some of its Foodtown stores to Countdown stores (Greenlane in Auckland is one that comes to mind) and rejigging its ranges to take them down market.
I think of my own family’s buying habits in recent months. We have a great collection of Pak’nSaves around us in Auckland and quite a few Foodtowns. When we need something unusual such as gluten- and dairy-free stuff we go to Foodtown, but it’s less often than it used to be. The strike/lockout in 2006 and the shortages it caused were the trigger point for us to start looking elsewhere. A visit to a supermarket is useless if you can’t get everything in one visit.
We’re now doing our big shops now at Pak’n'Save. We reckon we can save up to $100 a week.
Kiwis love a bargain and right now we seem to love the Kiwi grocery chain a bit more than the Aussie one.
Submitted by Joe Hendren on Fri, 25/07/2008 - 9:52am.
Body: The Government and trade unions say National's employment relations policy will cut wages, despite the party saying it will retain core provisions of the Employment Relations Act (ERA) if it wins the election.
National's leader, John Key, gave an assurance today the basic principles of the ERA would remain in place. "We are staying with the Employment Relations Act. We are not going back to the Employment Contracts Act," he said. "Good faith provisions will still apply, as will rights to sick leave, holidays, and health and safety provisions."
Mr Key said National would keep four weeks annual leave but allow employees to trade the fourth week for cash.
Labour Minister Trevor Mallard described the policy as "a return to the bad old days" with no protection for new employees, an erosion of the Holidays Act and a power shift in favour of employers. National's policy contains the previously-announced provision for a 90-day probation period for new employees and says there will be a review of the Holidays Act. Mr Mallard described the probation period as a "fire at will" provision which would mean lower pay and would force new employees into a trial period without any protection against unfair or unreasonable treatment. And he said a review of the Holidays Act was National Party code for cutting the pay of sick people.
The Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union (EPMU) said the policy would drive down the wages of all workers. "Every point in this policy is an attack on current worker rights and every point would put downward pressure on wages," said EPMU national secretary Andrew Little.
Council of Trade Unions president Helen Kelly said there was no mention in the policy of how it would lift wages and predicted holiday pay would be cut.
The National Distribution Union's secretary, Laila Harre, said the policy was a wolf in sheep's clothing. "It is a gift to employers, wrapped in the language of `reasonableness'," she said. "This policy will keep wages down. . .the attempt to shift the balance of power in a workplace even more towards employers is dressed up in weasel words."
Business New Zealand said the policy had the capacity to deliver economic growth if it was partnered by other pro-growth policies. "A period of restraint and consolidation along with enhancement of basic rights is likely to be beneficial," Business NZ chief executive Phil O'Reilly said. "The vast majority of employers will welcome the commitment to review the Holidays Act which has been widely criticised for its complexity and costliness to apply." National's industrial relations spokeswoman, Kate Wilkinson, said the policy was balanced and the response was hysterical. "There is no threat to worker rights, collective bargaining will continue, there is no attack on entitlements, there is no plan to cut holidays and there is no plan to privatise ACC," she said. "It's the same tired old hysterical rubbish we've heard from Labour all week."
The main points of National’s policy are:
- Introduce a 90-day trial period for new staff, by agreement between the employer and employee, in businesses with fewer than 20 people;
- Continue to allow union access to workplaces with an employer's consent, which cannot be unreasonably withheld;
- Continue to support the social partnership with Business NZ and the Council of Trade Unions to work together on issues of mutual interest;
- Restore workers' rights to bargain collectively without having to belong to a union;
- Retain the Mediation Service but ensure it is properly resourced with properly qualified mediators;
- Require the Employment Relations Authority to act judicially in accordance with the principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard, and the right to cross-examine before an impartial referee;
- Allow injunctions and important legal questions to be heard in the first instance in the Employment Court, and allow a general right of appeal to the Court of Appeal;
- Keep four weeks annual leave but allow employees to request trade of the fourth week for cash. This can be only at the employee's request and cannot be raised in negotiations for an agreement; and
- Appoint a working party to review the Holidays Act, especially the issue of 'relevant daily pay'.
Submitted by Joe Hendren on Thu, 24/07/2008 - 2:40pm.
Body: National has confirmed if it is elected to power it will largely retain the Employment Relations Act (ERA).
National leader John Key told a business breakfast meeting in Wellington the basic principles of the ERA – such as that of good faith bargaining – would remain in place. "We are staying with the Employment Relations Act. We are not going back to the Employment Contracts Act," Mr Key said.
Mr Key said his party's industrial relations policy would keep the ERA in place, but introduce a 90 day trial period for firms with fewer than 20 staff.
"Good-faith provisions will still apply, as will rights to sick leave, holidays, and health and safety provisions. Rules of natural justice and human rights legislation will apply. Mediation will be available in disputes, and employers won't be able to hire and fire the same employee every 90 days," Mr Key said.
National did not see the 90 day trial period as making it easier for employers to fire people, but easier to hire them. Every OECD country, except Denmark, had a probationary period. National has dropped its 2005 policy of restricting union access to work places, but will allow workers to bargain collectively without having to belong to a union.
Mr Key said National would also keep four weeks annual leave, but allow employees to trade the fourth week for cash.
This could only be at the employee's request and could not be raised in negotiations for an agreement.
A National government would also:
* Retain the Mediation Service but ensure it was properly resourced with properly qualified mediators;
* Require the Employment Relations Authority to act judicially in accordance with the principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard, and the right to cross examine before an impartial referee;
* Allow injunctions and important legal questions to be heard in the first instance in the Employment Court, and allow a general right of appeal to the Court of Appeal; and
* Appoint a working party to review the Holidays Act, especially the issue of relevant daily pay.
Submitted by Joe Hendren on Mon, 19/11/2007 - 10:45am.
Body:
Children who work need the same level of protection as adult workers doing similar tasks, says the Catholic social justice agency Caritas Aotearoa New Zealand. Caritas research and advocacy officer Lisa Beech says that for many working children it was not happening.
The agency has published a report – Delivering the Goods – detailing the findings of a survey on children delivering circulars and newspapers to household letterboxes. It included in-depth interviews with 30 children aged 10 to 16 doing delivery work, as a follow-up to a wider 2003 survey of child workers.
"While many children have good working experiences and value much of their working lives, the survey showed many areas of concern," Ms Beech said, "Particularly when comparing children's experience with adult postal workers delivering to the same letterboxes."
Caritas wanted to see a code of best practice for the employment of children in delivery work.
"We believe the single most important step to improve children's working experiences would be to require that their employment status is that of employees rather than contractors," Ms Beech said. "There was a very marked difference between children employed directly as employees and those who had the status of self-employed contractors." She said child employees were considerably better off. "They received holiday and sick pay, age-appropriate relief workers, clothing and bike allowances, the most effective information and oversight of health and safety conditions, and the most direct contact with employers. In contracting situations, these employment rights were mostly absent," Ms Beech said.
Other concerns highlighted by the report include:
- Little attention paid to health and safety concerns such as visibility and loads, particularly compared to adult postal workers.
- Contracts sighted generally showed an unbalanced power relationship between employers and workers.
- Although some companies had an informal age of entry to the workforce of between 10 and 12 years, this was not communicated formally on material supplied to workers. Children were sometimes asked to find their own substitute workers for illness or absence and in many cases children paid siblings as young as six to do the work for them.
- Pay rates were very low, with an effective hourly rate among children in the survey of between $1.67 and $6.25.
Caritas said a code of best practice needed to be developed by employers, unions and appropriate government agencies – working together with the children employed in the industry and their parents.
"New Zealand government reports have frequently stated that working children are adequately protected by our existing legislation," said Ms Beech. "Caritas believes this position is based on very little information about children's actual working experiences, as there appears to be little oversight by the Department of Labour, or involvement by unions or other community organisations."
Ms Beech said any industry based on child labour, no matter how willing the participants, had a very high level of moral responsibility to ensure that they were well treated.
Submitted by Joe Hendren on Tue, 13/11/2007 - 9:00am.
Body: LAST ORDERS: Australia's Industrial Relations Commission has upheld the sacking of a supermarket manager who drank two beers over lunch.
Employment lawyers are warning staff against too much celebration this Christmas after the Industrial Relations Commission upheld the sacking of a supermarket manager for having two beers at lunchtime.
The commission ruled Tony Selak had breached the conditions of his employment as the manager of a Safeway store in Melbourne by violating the "zero tolerance" policy on drinking in working hours enforced by Woolworths, which owns Safeway.
Mr Selak, 36, admitted having two glasses of beer over lunch in May, but argued that the policy should not apply to managers, who did not operate equipment or machinery. He said he was drinking only to help create a more relaxed environment in which he could convince a valuable employee, who was thinking of resigning, to stay with the company. But Commissioner Gareth Grainger found Woolworths's decision to sack Mr Selak, who had worked for the company for 18 years, was "not harsh, unjust or unreasonable".
The law firm Fisher Cartwright Berriman said Mr Selak's case had national implications, especially given the looming Christmas season and its traditional festive lunches. Alistair Salmon, a partner with the firm, said: "This decision makes it clear that an employee who breaches an alcohol policy and is sacked then, prima facie, does not have sufficient grounds for unfair dismissal. "Employees need to look at their contractual obligations as they move into the party season, where alcohol consumption greatly increases, notwithstanding some of those obligations might be considered unreasonable."
Submitted by Joe Hendren on Fri, 09/11/2007 - 9:00am.
Union Relevance in Aotearoa in the 21st Century
Laila Harré
National Secretary
National Distribution Union
Submitted by Joe Hendren on Tue, 02/10/2007 - 5:41pm.
Body:
PEOPLE on Australian Workplace Agreements earn an average of $106 ($NZ123) a week less than their counterparts on collective agreements, the biggest study of the new workplace laws has found.
The study of 8343 people, half-funded by the Federal Government, shows workers on AWAs earned an average $1069.57 a week, compared with $1175.97 by workers on collective agreements, with both groups working an average 44 hours a week.
The Australia@Work report, by the University of Sydney's Workplace Research Centre, shows why the debate over wages and working conditions has been ranked by voters as a major election issue since the March 2006 Work Choices law began to take effect.
The most recent Bureau of Statistics figures suggest workers on AWAs are earning 9 per cent more than those on collective agreements. But the bureau only measured the first eight weeks of Work Choices, up to May 2006, while this new study is based on data gathered until July this year. The study found collective bargaining has been disappearing for many years and that the trend is accelerating, helped by Work Choices and AWAs.
Common law contracts are also growing in popularity. Employees on these contacts are overwhelmingly managers and executives, and their average salary is $1584.29 a week.
The report also reveals Australians have some of the longest working hours in the world. More than a fifth work 50 hours or more a week. Miners work an average 55-hour week, and 21 per cent of all workers wished they could work fewer hours.
The Howard Government introduced AWAs in 1996 to encourage employers and staff to directly negotiate pay and conditions, but the report finds that direct bargaining is increasingly uncommon. Forty-six per cent of all people on AWAs say they had no opportunity to negotiate their contents. Of 177,000 people who moved onto AWAs this year, 56 per cent said there was no negotiation. The authors suspect employers are using "non-negotiated AWAs" to move workers from award entitlements to the cheaper minimum legal standards.
As this trend emerged early this year, the Government introduced a fairness test in May to stop employees trading away entitlements like overtime and shift penalties without fair compensation. The report is the first instalment of a five-year study in which the same people will be interviewed each year. It was jointly funded by the NSW Labor Council and the Federal Government through the Australia Research Council. The report also found high-skill employees on
non-negotiated AWAs are working more paid and unpaid hours than those on individual contracts. Staff on these take-it-or leave-it AWAs "earn the lowest hourly rate regardless of skill level," the report says.
James Chessell, a spokesman for the Minister for the Minister for Workplace Relations, Joe Hockey, challenged the conclusions of the study. "We think the ABS figures are a more reliable guide than a study cooked up by [Research Centre director] John Buchanan and his cronies," Mr Chessell said.
Submitted by Joe Hendren on Mon, 13/08/2007 - 10:23am.
Body: The business community is very concerned about the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill that is working its way through Parliament. The bill purports to give employees with young or disabled children or dependent relatives the right to ask for changed working hours.
On the face of it, that seems compassionate and sensible. But this legislation is not exactly about getting flexible hours. That's because employees already have the right to ask for changed working hours (and the majority of employers do their best to accommodate those requests).
Second, the process proposed by the bill wouldn't achieve more flexible hours anyway. So what is it about?
Some background: It is a bill based on similarly named British legislation, but which would be far more draconian toward employers than the British law is. It has been put forward by the Green Party and appears at this time to have Labour's support. This means it is close to having the numbers to pass into law. Unfortunately it combines the worst of woolly Greens thinking with Labour's tendency to punish the business sector.
In essence, what the bill would really do is bring in a grievance process that could be used to punish an enterprise that was not able to agree to a particular employee's request. It would be a gold-plated grievance process. An aggrieved employee could go to a labour inspector in the first instance, and if that failed, to mediation, the Employment Relations Authority, then the Employment Court, the Court of Appeal and all the way to the Supreme Court.
It's a bizarre thought that a simple request for a change in working hours – something that is worked out in a commonsense way every day in workplaces all over the country – should go all the way to the Supreme Court. The threat of expense and time wasted in all of this would result in many employers feeling forced to say yes to a request even if that would cause problems among other employees.
The effect of the legislation would be to increase the already large grievance industry operating in New Zealand. It would also expand the reach of the union movement. Part of the legislation would require union officials to be involved in the decision if there was a collective agreement in the workplace. This would be so even if the employee making the request wasn't a union member. This strange requirement would bog down the process, particularly in companies in which the workforce belonged to several unions, or in the state sector where there is a high degree of union membership.
The legislation could be used by a minority element as an industrial weapon. A disgruntled troublemaker could find it a ready tool for "getting back" at an employer for a perceived slight, or a rogue union element could use it to spark discontent among employees. Employers could be forgiven for feeling a bit threatened by this proposed legislation, especially as there appears to be no real need for it.
In the many workplaces that I come into contact with, I see a culture of flexibility and give and take among employers and employees. Employees are happy to work round each other's needs. Employers are certainly keen to do the same. Not only is that important for the wellbeing of individuals and the overall company culture, but it is essential in today's tight labour market – companies that don't look after their employees risk losing them.
Just last week a survey came out showing that New Zealand employers are among the most flexible in the world. Since employees already have the right to request flexible hours and since New Zealand employers are already very responsive to staff needs, this legislation is misplaced. Coming on top of the employer- unfriendly Employment Relations Act, the disastrous Holidays Act and the ambush involved in compulsory employer contributions to KiwiSaver, this legislation is definitely not wanted by the productive sector.
# Phil O'Reilly is chief executive of Business NZ.
Submitted by administrator on Fri, 18/05/2007 - 8:00am.
Body: Budget Sparks Concerns About Industrial Relations
6:37 am, 18 May 2007
Printer friendly version Print this story
Business New Zealand is concerned the savings incentives offered in yesterday's Budget could provoke industrial strife.
The revised Kiwisaver scheme includes compulsory employer contributions, as well as tax credits for both workers and companies.
The Minister of Finance, Dr Michael Cullen, says employers could offset the cost of their contributions against wage or salary demands by their staff.
But Business New Zealand says it will not be possible for employers to negotiate on that when their participation is being made mandatory.
Chief executive, Phil O'Reilly, says wage demands are likely to be made in addition to Kiwisaver contributions, saddling employers with big costs.
National Distribution Union say it is unlikely to accept Kiwisaver contributions in lieu of pay rises because its members earn too little as it is. National secretary, Laila Harre, says the scheme is not workable.
The Council of Trade Unions supports the plan.
Economists say the budget's focus on boosting savings will help the Reserve Bank's fight against inflation in the medium term.
The Finance Minister, Michael Cullen, exceeded his own budget spending limit yesterday by $600 million.
But he does not believe it will cause the Reserve Bank any concerns as the overall surplus is bigger than expected as well.
He says the boost to KiwiSaver is also likely to help ease inflation pressures in the medium to long term.
Economists say increasing savings will help to reduce consumer spending and take money out of the economy unlike tax cuts
But some say the Reserve Bank is not likely to reap the benefits of more savings for five years.
The National Party says the Budget will leave workers feeling short-changed.
Changes to the KiwiSaver scheme include compulsory employer contributions and tax breaks of up to 20-dollars a week to off-set the cost to business.
Employees who sign up to the scheme will get the same amount in tax credits.
But National's leader, John Key, says workers in KiwiSaver will have to give up any wage increases for four years while employer contributions to the scheme progressively rise.
The Green Party has accused the government of failing to address its “green” goals in the Budget.
Green Party co-leader, Jeanette Fitzsimons, says more money could have been put into investing in cleaner technology and sustainable infrastructure such as public transport and coastal shipping.
She says there was no commitment to put real money behind attaining carbon neutrality and sustainability, despite the $1.7 billion surplus.
The New Zealand First leader, Winston Peters, says the reworked KiwiSaver scheme is the bright light in the budget.
Mr Peters says while they are long overdue, the changes to the KiwiSaver scheme are a giant leap forward.
He says KiwiSaver will change the psyche of people as they will have a stake in the economy, like they have never had before.
The United Future leader, Peter Dunne, says the enhanced KiwiSaver scheme is forward-looking, and will reward those who make a long-term commitment to their future.
Mr Dunne, who is the Minister of Revenue, says the budget will encourage a savings culture, as well as promote business investment.
|
