To download the fact sheet click the link here: Just Facts – Employment law change

To see the other fact sheets click here.

To download the fact sheet click the link here: Just Facts – Beneficaries and contraception

To see the other fact sheets click here.

Labour health spokeswoman Maryan Street said increasing prescription prices to subsidise other health services punished the wrong people.

“What [Health Minister] Tony Ryall is doing is asking low and middle income New Zealanders who already struggle to meet their basic needs, to cough up more cash at the counter to subsidise treatment for others.”

The government will save $20 million in the first year and $40 million in following years and the budget will provide $101 million for more elective operations and scans, and improved cancer services.

Health spokesperson Barbara Stewart says the government is simply ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’ as it makes no sense to impose higher health costs on families and old people struggling to make ends meet.

“The problem is the government is cutting back on health funding in real terms and then switching funds from the health needs of one section of the community to another section.” This is user-pays of the worst order.

The rise of prescription charges has been one of the series of changes that the National party did not campaign on at elections. John Key’s pursuit of a zero budget will mean more changes to come. The Government has let on that there may be an increase in the amount some families will have to pay for early childhood education, changes to student allowance and student loans and a price rise in excise on cigarettes.

When our government want to make changes to the law they will ask for submissions from the public. But often finding the time and the words and the process can be time consuming and not the easiest thing to do. We want to help make that easier, so we have produced a fact sheet on how to make submissions. They don’t have to be complicated things, and we encourage you to give it a go.

Download the fact sheet by clicking on the link here: Just Facts – Making a submission

View other fact sheets available for download

As I have been following the ongoing debate (if you can call it that) in the media over the question of inequality, it has become very apparent that certain parts of society do not want to recognise the seriousness of the situation. Typical of this was a comment recently in The Listener (24-30 March 2012). In an article entitled “Change Manager” the relatively new head of the Treasury Gabriel Makhlouf responded to remarks about the book The Spirit Level saying he was not impressed by the thesis that societies with greater income inequality have poorer social, crime and health outcomes across the whole population, not just those at the bottom. Makhlouf then went on to say that its conclusions are “simplistic…It’s just more complicated than that, I’m cautious about arriving at generalisations across countries”.

and the UK. Interestingly, Finland, which was in the news recently courtesy of Gerry Brownlee when he compared Finland’s performance to New Zealand for a number of indicators, has an incarceration rate of 40 per 100,000, which Mr Brownlee failed to mention.  In addition it has the second lowest income gap according to The Spirit Level. Is this another example of “Don’t confuse me with facts ….” or is it a selective use of facts which is as bad?

Our Government seems to be strangely silent on the immorally high Maori incarceration rate, only slightly less than the world’s worst – the USA. How much of this is because of inequality? The Maori Economic Taskforce reports:    “In 2011, Māori average weekly income was $784, which is $115 less than the national average weekly income of $899” [3] which appears to give an answer. But what is being done about it?

The Occupy Movement was originally disparaged as without goals, naive and directionless but did get responses from ordinary people, the so called 99%, to the extent the 1% became concerned. Even world leaders such as Barack Obama and David Cameron began to call for “responsible capitalism” and a “fairer” economy”. But what do they mean? Both the US and British Governments promised tough legislation to control the abuses that led to the world financial crisis of 2007-8 but any measures so far have been so watered down under pressure from the financial and banking industries that they are hardly worth the paper they are printed on.

Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman in his book “Inequality and crisis; coincidence or causation?” said that income disparity in the USA in 2007, just before the crisis, reached the same peak as just before the Great Wall Street Crash of 1929 that led to the Great Depression. This can be clearly seen in the graph below.

Even more concerning is that the income of the top 1% in the USA has increased from 10% in 1980 to 23.5% in 2007.  We are clearly seeing the impact of the neoliberal policies of Reagan and Thatcher. The impact of Rogernomics in New Zealand has significantly increased the total income going to the top 1%.

Whilst the income disparity is not as great in New Zealand as in the USA it is still significant and rising. According to the Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship1982 to 2010 report issued by the

Ministry of Social Development in July 2011 household incomes of the top 10% increased 33% between 1982 and 2010  compared to only 16% for the bottom 10%.[4]

The table of central and local Government CEO Salaries that appeared recently in the NZ Herald[5] would have come as a surprise to many. The need to maintain “international competitiveness” was one of the reasons for the size of many of the salary packages. Rev. Norman Brookes, the Auckland Superintendant of the Methodist Church in an article responding to the CEO Salary data,[6], suggests the following new 10 commandments:

• Let there be no executive pay rises that are above the rate of inflation.
• Let there be no bonuses given that are not a recompense for exceptional service and results.
• Let there be no salaries grossly in excess of the level of that paid out to the country’s Prime Minister.
• Let there be no Boards of Directors who are unwilling to keep executive salaries under control.
• Let there be no chief executives employed who are not willing to live within these parameters.
• Let there be no executive severance packages greater than the limit imposed by three month’s salary.
• Let there be no tax loopholes for anyone and in particular for those earning over $100,000p.a.
• Let there be no tax funded advances to public companies that are not prepared to work within these limitations.
• Let there be no contracts that over rule conscience.
• Let there be no secret deals, let transparency rule the day.

These principles would be a very good start to addressing the issues of gross inequality in our society.

Finally, a warning about the long term impact of inequality, in an article by Vanessa Baird in the March 2012 edition of New Internationalist she writes: “Inequality, of almost every kind, lay at the heart of the US sub-prime mortgage bubble that finally burst in 2007. Fortunes had been made by international banks and brokers who had exploited the “untapped market” of low-income people. The loans they had taken out had high rates of return for the lenders. In the end it was the low income people who were left homeless, penniless and with a blighted credit record. For ordinary folk there was no bank bailout, no quick solution – just enduring hardship. In a single month, July 2010, a record 93,000 US homes were repossessed. An economy based on debt not only deepens inequality. It also has a way of killing freedom and democracy – both at personal level and national level.”[7]

The danger we cannot ignore, is the power and influence the 1% can wield over democratically elected governments. This power appears to be used to ensure that existing privileges are not threatened and are, in fact, extended.  The 2010 tax cuts in NZ are a good example of this. Control of much of the media is another: as we see in Australia where some of the “mining barons” are trying to buy control of major media outlets as a way of fighting the proposed Resource Tax.

The facts are clear; inequality is dangerous to the health of us all. How much longer will our leaders, in their privileged positions, bury their heads in the sand and behave as if to say, “Don’t confuse me with facts….I’ve already made up my mind.”?

David Hall.

The conference theme is “Moving Forward Together, Nuku Tahi – Hikoi Tahi – Maranga Tahi”, and Professor Biggs will be speaking on Thursday morning about re-framing the debate around how best to improve the present and future well-being of older people.

Professor Biggs is currently based at the University of Melbourne and also works with the Brotherhood of St Laurence social justice research and policy teams. He is a member of the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on Ageing Societies and has contributed to research projects with the World Health Organisation (WHO) and Europe’s Economic and Social Research Centre (ESRC).

Last year Professor Biggs co-authored a book titled “Generational Intelligence” (Routledge, 2011) that looks into the steps that need to be taken internationally to improve intergenerational communication in families, at work and in neighbourhoods.

The book points to the risk of fractured social relations in societies that are entering a significant ageing ‘boom’. A risk, it follows, that will only increase if we fail to give more attention to understanding and communicating what different generations mean to each other.

The book suggests that we need to be more “critically self-aware” of age as a factor in social relations so that age itself doesn’t act as a barrier or create conflict. A suggested step for growing that self-awareness is to imagine yourself in the shoes of someone of a different age group. How do you perceive being ‘old’? Are there gaps between generations that are too big to bridge?

How do you perceive your own generation? Do you feel a sense of solidarity or ambivalence about intergenerational relationships?

A recent project in Melbourne saw a 12 minute DVD produced on this topic as a way of showing how sustainable generational relations can be encouraged and can help minimise ageism. Titled “Age Encounters”, it can be viewed at http://youtu.be/wdcWZDZ7d-I

This week’s conference is being held at Te Raukara – Te Wharewaka o Poneke on the Wellington waterfront.

____________________________

Contacts for further information:

Paul Barber phone 04 473 2627 or e-mail paul.barber@nzccss.org.nz

Media advisor: Sharon Leamy (027) 341 6085 / or (021) 266 4427

This article attempts to put together, from readily available sources, a picture of what has happened thus far, and suggests some ethical principles to consider when making our own judgments about this issue.

The Maritime Union of New Zealand (MUNZ) and the Ports of Auckland Limited (POAL) have been negotiating over a new collective agreement since early September 2011 (the old agreement expired on 30 September 2011).  

The Port would like maximum flexibility in worker hours, given the timing uncertainties in ship arrivals.  Sometimes there is a lot of work to be done and sometimes there is not.  The Union recognises this, but considers the present situation a good balance in flexibility: 53 percent full-time workers, 27 percent guaranteed a 24-hour week and 20 percent of workers employed as ‘casuals’ ( www.saveourport.com/issues/facts/ ).

The Port claims that its proposals will actually offer more casual employees full time positions with a guarantee of 160 hours of work per month.  To get the flexibility it wants, the Port offered a 10 percent increase in wages over 30 months – but it also wants to increase competition by hiring two additional stevedoring companies ( www.poal.co.nz/shipping_cargo/downloads/20120224_Stakeholder%20Update.pdf ) , as at the Port of Tauranga.  The Port proposal would result in the ‘casualisation’ of the majority of the workforce.  

The Union claims that casualisation would result in many workers not knowing when or for how long they would be called up to work.  It would mean loss of security for workers and their families who rely on having guaranteed part-time contracts at present.  It is difficult to see how families could possibly continue to maintain stable family housing or relationships without basic job security.  

The Union request is for a 2.5 percent pay increase over 12 months, continued job security, an agreement not to contract-out, and several other health and safety provisions.  It considers that competition engendered by multiple companies is a causal factor in the three deaths at the Port of Tauranga over the last year ( http://www.saveourport.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Port-of-Auckland-Dispute-Fact-Sheet-3-Feb-2012.pdf ).

With no movement in negotiations, several strike actions were taken in late 2011.  At a mediation on 12 January 2012, the union agreed to a number of changes including more flexibility in rosters, and greater use of part-time employees.  The Port pushed for even greater casualisation.  In the midst of more intense strike action, the Port announced on 7 March that it would make 292 port staff redundant and hire a replacement workforce. 

On 9 March Anglican Bishops Ross Bay and Kito Pikaahu, along with Roman Catholic Bishop Patrick Dunn, offered themselves to help mediate between the parties in an attempt to keep the dialogue open and resolve the dispute.  They stepped back when Mayor Len Brown made his offer, which was taken up but unsuccessful.  On 10 March, 5000 people marched on Queen Street on behalf of the port workers.  

By 16 March, the Employment Court ordered a judicial settlement conference and banned the dismissal of striking workers in the interim.  Just when it appeared a resolution had been reached, the Port locked out workers on 22 March on the grounds that the return of union workers would endanger its non-union workers.  At the point of writing this, the legality of the Port action and truth of its claims are just going to court.
Although the casualisation issue is the main issue between the Port and the Union, a contributing background issue is the 2011 demand by Auckland Council (which owns 100 percent of the Port) to increase the return on equity (ROE) from 6.3 percent to 12 percent in five years.  There are suspicions that this drive to obtain more money from the Port is behind its proposal to casualise its workforce.  

Could the Port reasonably increase its return to the people of Auckland?  Commentator Tim Watkin’s research on comparable ports shows that Melbourne’s ROE is 3.1 percent, Otago’s is 4.7 percent, Sydney’s is 6.7 percent, and ‘much lauded’ Tauranga’s is 6.8 percent.  So where did Auckland Council get the 12 percent figure?  On 19 March, Council issued a press release that reported the 1999-2003 ROE at the Port of Auckland as between 13.2 – 17.8 percent.  It also mentioned the ROEs of other companies like Briscoes, Freightways, Sky City and Telecom which boasted ROEs of between 18-19.5 percent. The latter, he notes, are firms not even remotely in the same business.  The earlier ROEs for the Port of Auckland were typical of the ‘boom years well before the credit crunch and the worst global recession since the Great Depression’ ( www.pundit.co.nz/content/solving-the-ports-of-auckland-dispute ).

Is the Port having productivity issues?  The Union notes that in September 2011, the Port of Auckland congratulated them for achieving record hourly container moves.  But the Port believes it can achieve greater productivity with a competitive model, and refers to the Government’s recent Productivity Commission  recommendations for achieving greater returns through productivity and labour flexibility ( http://needforchange.poal.co.nz/the-facts/default.htm).

The churches have highlighted social issues which thus far been largely ignored by the media, Port, Council and Government in the drive for greater monetary returns.  The Chair of the Anglican Social Justice Commission, Bishop Muru Walters, cautioned against the desire to casualise the labour force: ‘At a time when this Government is pursuing policies it says are aimed intentionally at reducing vulnerability in families and for children, the silence from them around this issue is as surprising as the economic and employment policies that allow this kind of situation to arise…We cannot sit by and witness the deliberate creation of vulnerable families’ ( www.justice.net.nz/justwiki/auckland-ports-press-release).

The Justice and Peace Commission of the Catholic Diocese of Auckland released a statement highlighting the principles of Catholic social teaching that apply to the present dispute  
( www.catholicjusticeauckland.org.nz/News/tabid/7785/language/en-NZ/Default.aspx ).  It emphasizes that workers have the right to wages and working conditions that enable them to support and spend time with their families, commenting that when considering changes in working conditions, a fundamental question which needs to be asked is ‘How does this change affect this person as a human being, as a member of a family, as a member of a community?’ 

The Catholic statement also significantly notes that individual employers or businesses sometimes do not have full control over the conditions in which they are employing people.  In the present case, the Ports of Auckland is under pressure from its owner, Auckland Council, to increase economic returns.  Greater returns could be used for any number of worthy purposes, including better public transport, for which the Government is refusing to come to the party.  The Government, through the Productivity Commission, also appears to be pushing for privatisation as a means of increasing greater productivity and labour flexibility ( http://www.productivity.govt.nz/draft-report-engagement/1022).  And as Bishop Walters points out, in this way it may be creating more of the very vulnerability it claims to be trying to lessen, as for example in its Green Paper for Vulnerable Children.   

In the end, this dispute seems to be one in which potential increased returns are to be won at the expense of the job security of workers and their families.  The fact that the Port has already achieved far beyond the 12 percent target ROE during good economic times indicates that high productivity IS possible with Union workers and without casualisation.  

The question is: are the Ports of Auckland, Auckland Council and the Government by their respective action and inaction deliberately or inadvertently contributing to the breakdown of the union movement and thus to the insecurity of the labour force?  While unions are not perfect, they exist to protect the interests of workers.  When companies have the right to make union workers redundant and re-hire them on company terms (‘union members need not apply’), does this not constitute a clear miscarriage of social justice?

Talking Cents is an ecumenical group charged by the Anglican Diocesan Council to promote an alternative to current economic and political thought, and to encourage debate within the church. Ministry units are encouraged to distribute these articles. This article is contributed by Mary Betz from the Justice and Peace Commission of the Catholic Diocese of Auckland.

“Almost 300 workers are now unemployed as a result of this conflict, and we are particularly conscious of the impact on the wellbeing of those workers and their families.

“Our two local bishops, together with the Catholic Bishop of Auckland, offered to help mediate the dispute in the first place – and members of the Social Justice Commission, together with others from this Church, have since stood on the picket line.

“We welcome prayer for the legal process now being engaged in by both parties and intercede for a just outcome.

“We pray for those with authority, those whose decisions affect the lives of others and those who struggle for the rights of workers in this country.

“May we all seek to work together for a just and equitable society for all our people.”

Archbishop David Moxon

Archbishop Brown Turei

Being in solidarity with the picket line people was a humbling experience. I was welcomed in a little tent as the bishop who came amongst them. I was honored to stand amongst them and be welcomed in Maori and to offer a prayer during this, our time of Lent. I gladly offered a prayer for people who were suffering and were courageous to assemble next to a busy road to draw attention to accept farewell decisions imposed on them, and subject them to the welfare alternatives for their survival.

I saw some Social Justice Commission members standing beside a large Anglican Church notice board next to the picket line people holding their placards. One offered me his. When I held it up I received some loud cheers from the many cars, trucks, buses, trains and motor cycles that bulleted, past us. For me that was a joyous place to be in.

Later I was relieved from this dangerous task. I could have been smashed by an angry vehicle. Someone who detested what we were doing could have torpedoed all of us. Yet I felt motivated. I played many rugby matches in Auckland. We lost some. We won some. Competition and cooperation coexisted so trust, respect and compassion will be ingrained in our hopes for human survival.

I was honored to be introduced and talk with the leaders, men and women, who were still negotiating for the wellbeing of their people. They have a ministry which is similar to mine. They are carers of God’s people.

Before I left I was offered the opportunity to sit at the table in the picket line tent with some of the picket people. Next to the table were huge pots. One was a casserole and the other was full of hot steaming meat bones which looked like pork and puha. I really enjoyed eating in that special tent, next to a busy road with people who care for people.

When I finished eating I sat quietly and offered a prayer in silence; for those who were sitting at the table with me; for those still outside with their placards; for the leaders still seeking a new way forward for their people who are no longer workers and their families; for the government to respond to the wellbeing of these people.

I left with some good feelings by being with good people who are building a world to be good in.

Arohanui Muru.