Recent News

Canterbury Employers’ Chamber of Commerce (The Chamber) Chief Executive Leeann Watson says today’s Budget 2021 announcement has largely overlooked the role of business in the country’s economic recovery. Finance Minister Grant Robertson outlined his fourth Budget today, which focused on the three pillars of child poverty, affordable housing and climate change. Ms Watson says: “Rather than taking a balanced approach within this Budget on societal issues and the economic recovery and rebuild, it feels like the Government has taken an either/or approach. In order to focus on some of the significant issues we face in New Zealand, such as around child poverty, affordable housing and of course climate change, we need to have a strong economy, which is underpinned by our business community. So it is disappointing that the role of businesses have been largely overlooked in this Budget. “The Government has said that it is committed to tackling the foundational challenges in our economy and society, but where is the recognition of the role of business in supporting this? We need businesses and jobs to secure the livelihoods and welfare of our community.” Ms Watson says it was positive to see the final stage of investment for a new South Island Mechanical Maintenance Hub to be built at Waltham in Christchurch. “This Hub will create around 300 jobs through its construction, which is significant for the city, and will be a great asset for the region moving forward. It was also positive to see funding for a $306 million redevelopment of Scott Base, which will support up to 700 jobs over the six-year timeframe for the work and enable us to leverage our Antarctic connection, and most importantly, ensure our presence in Antarctica is safeguarded.” Included in the Budget was an investment over the next two year of $44 […]

By Jane Kelsey, Professor of Law, University of Auckland. With more countries considering joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), New Zealand urgently needs a real public debate on the future of such trade and investment agreements. In February this year the UK formally applied to join as part of its quest for post-Brexit free trade agreements. Reportedly, Thailand, South Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan and even China are to varying degrees considering membership. Coverage of these developments is often overly simplistic, treating expansion as a notch in the belt for those who see the CPTPP as shaping the 21st century’s global trade rules. Behind the headlines, the reality is more complex. Given the CPTPP restricts governments’ ability to regulate their own economies in return for notional benefits, it warrants closer scrutiny from all sides. But the secrecy surrounding possible new memberships makes scrutiny difficult, just as it earlier hindered independent assessments of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) and subsequent CPTPP negotiations. Blueprint for a neoliberal trade agenda The original TPPA was always intended as a blueprint for future trade relations across the Asia-Pacific region (with the now-abandoned Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership proposing similar rules for US-EU trade). New Zealand was primarily committed to the TPPA as an opportunity to secure a free trade agreement (FTA) with the United States, regardless of the costs. Despite vociferous public protest against its potential to erode national sovereignty, which forced discussion out of the shadows, the National government signed the TPPA anyway. The Labour, New Zealand First and Green parties all opposed its ratification in the select committee, as did Māori in the Waitangi Tribunal. National ignored them again, ratifying the text in May 2017. Singapore’s Minister for Trade and Industry Lim Hng Kiang with New Zealand Prime Minister John Key after signing the Trans Pacific Partnership in Auckland in 2016. GettyImages […]

The EMA says there will be no positive outcomes from the Fair Pay Agreement (FPA) proposal for businesses. Chief Executive Brett O’Riley says the effects of the proposal to Cabinet today on FPAs to standardise conditions across industries or occupations will make them less flexible, less resilient and ultimately less productive. The EMA is also concerned that only unions can initiate bargaining for an FPA in the proposal, which does not allow for voluntary negotiation and arbitration, which is currently a breach of international law. This has repeatedly been raised with the Government in the lead-up to this announcement. Mr O’Riley (pictured) says FPAs are equally disadvantageous to everyone – employers and employees – and will not achieve the highly-skilled, innovative workforce and economy with well-paid jobs that is needed. “Given there is no evidence that FPAs will increase productivity or reduce inequality – which have in fact both improved since company-level bargaining became permitted in 1991 – where are the benefits and why is the Government looking at this beyond copying what has happened unsuccessfully in Australia?” “Essentially, this would take us back to the past when we had industrial awards which saw workers’ share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) decline and more inequality in income than we have now. This is not the way to create a high performing competitive economy,” Mr O’Riley says. The EMA has no anecdotal evidence from its 7400 member businesses that employers are cutting down their costs to get contracts by paying people less, except where Government procurement has forced this outcome in areas like the provision of bus services. “Our concern is that FPAs will result in higher wages, and the solution for businesses will be to cut down their workforce, or in the case of already struggling manufacturers and SMEs, they […]