Latest news with #CouncilofTradeUnions
Scoop
24-05-2025
- Business
- Scoop
Rabbits, Switch-Ups And Highway Robbery: Politicians, Economists React To Budget 25
Article – RNZ Every politician, economist and their dog had their own nickname for the document dubbed the 'Growth Budget' by the government. , Political Reporter Budget Day is a bit of a whirlwind. Opposition politicians, journalists and economists have just three-and-a-half hours to pore over the books, before presenting reports and analysis on what's on offer, what it means to people and, of course, come up with a hot take or two. The government found $2.7 billion a year through its changes to pay equity, cut its own contributions to KiwiSaver, told 18 and 19 year olds it would no longer pay them to sit on the couch and introduced a new Investment Boost tax incentive, which is tipped to increase New Zealand's GDP by 1 percent over the next 20 years. It was dubbed the 'Growth Budget' by the government, although the finance minister was fond of calling it the 'No BS Budget'. Economists and MPs had their own nicknames and thoughts to share. Bagrie Economics managing director Cameron Bagrie called it the 'Rabbit Budget', as the pay equity changes allowed the government to pull the rabbit out of the hat and generate savings. 'Looking forward, we need a few more rabbits to pull out of a few more hats in the 2026 and 2027 Budgets, because we're still a long way away from returning to surplus.' The books are not expected to return to surplus until 2029 and, even then, it will be a modest surplus of $200 million. Bagrie said New Zealand still had not seen the hard yards. 'The savings are all backloaded into 2027, 2028 and 2029, and those savings to be delivered are going to require that we need tight expenditure control in the 2026, 2027 and 2028 Budgets. We know that spending pressures, including the funding of the defence force, are going to be pretty intense.' Council of Trade Unions economist Craig Renney, who is also on Labour's policy council, said it was a 'Highway Robbery Budget' with the changes to pay equity. 'It's not a Budget that's delivering for working people and it doesn't appear to be a Budget with working people in mind,' he said. 'We're taking money straight out of the pockets of low-income workers. 'We're taking benefits off 18-19 year olds, we're taking money from the education budget. We're taking money off Vote Māori Development, Vote Pacific Peoples and we're spending it on defence.' On the KiwiSaver changes, Renney wanted assurances that employers would not put pressure on low income workers to deliberately take the 3 percent level, so their own costs did not go up. He praised the Investment Boost scheme, saying New Zealand was 'way behind' in capital investment and the state had a big role to play. Baucher Consulting tax expert Terry Baucher was also a fan of the scheme, saying it was more generous than many predicted. He was less impressed with what was in the Budget for low-income families. 'The government has increased the Working for Families threshold to $44,900, but that's still below what someone on minimum wage would earn annually and it's $10,000 lower than it should be, if it had been increased in line with inflation since June 2018,' he said. 'Arguably, you could say that the burden for that Investment Boost is being paid by low-income workers and I don't agree with that. It's a disappointment in that regard.' He said New Zealand faced a 'demographic crunch', and there was not enough in the Budget to encourage families to work and raise their children in New Zealand. 'We're taking money from our younger working people to give to older, richer property-owning people and long-term, in my view, that's not a recipe for a growth economy.' Baucher said he understood why the government was means-testing KiwiSaver at higher levels, although did not support reducing the government contributions overall. Inequality researcher Max Rashbrooke said the KiwiSaver changes were mean-spirited. 'It is the state increasingly saying, 'If you're going to save, you're on your own. We're putting the burden on you to save out of your pay and we're putting the burden on your employer, rather than collectively, the state, trying to ensure that people are saving well for their retirement'.' Infometrics chief executive Brad Olsen said it was the 'Switch-up Budget' as the government tried to spend more, while cutting back. 'There are some big trade-offs that the government has had to make in Budget 2025 and I think, definitely for some groups, they'll be saying that's probably the wrong trade-off,' he said. Olsen was 'fairly relaxed' on the KiwiSaver changes and did not believe the current government contribution rate stimulated a huge amount of further investment that otherwise would not happen. 'I don't think it'll shift the dial in terms of more or less investment from Kiwis by getting rid of that government contribution, but by increasing both the employer and employee contribution rates, that will stimulate more savings over time and I think that's positive.' He was also onboard with cutting the government contribution rate entirely for those earning more than $180,000, saying the government needed to get its books in order and it did not need to give those earning good money that much support. New Zealand Initiative chief economist Eric Crampton said the government was making slow progress towards the smaller structural deficit in 2029 and needed to sort it before the demographic changes really started to bite in the 2030s. 'At some point, we have to wonder about the fiscal responsibility provisions in the Public Finance Act matter, because those effectively say you should not be running structural deficits for a decade, and we will have been running structural deficits for a decade. The ones during Covid were excusable – now, not so much.' Crampton agreed that greater means-testing and targeted assistance to those in need made sense. '[It] can help towards fiscal consolidation,' he said. 'I don't need to be getting a subsidy towards my KiwiSaver. 'It's better to target these sorts of things. Similarly, a bit tighter targeting in Working for Families can make a lot of sense. 'It's good that they are stopping the inflation indexing of repayment thresholds for student loans. It would be nice if they took a few other measures.' He pointed to re-instating interest on student loans as a measure that the government could take, while at the same time, increasing scholarships that are means-tested. No commitment from Labour on $12.8b pay equity return Fresh from delivering their speeches to the House, a rolling maul of MPs from government and opposition came across Parliament's tiles to take questions. First up was Labour leader Chris Hipkins, who continued to denounce the pay equity changes, particularly now there was a number put on them. He committed to reversing the changes, should Labour return to the government benches, but couldn't be nailed down on the exact amount. Primarily, that was because he was unsure how the government had arrived at its figures. 'They still haven't released their calculations on how they arrived at the savings they've delivered today, so I can't give you numbers,' he said. 'I can give you the principle, which is the principle is very clear for us. We don't believe that women should be paid less than men.' He also said the Working for Families changes were 'a measly amount, won't even pay for a block of butter' and the government cutting its KiwiSaver contributions 'raided the future retirement savings' of New Zealanders. 'I think most Kiwi families will be feeling that any advantage they got from tax cuts last year has been well and truly absorbed by increased costs in other areas,' Hipkins said. 'Their power bills are still going up, their rents are still going up. 'Prices of food are still going up and they're finding other forms of government support are now being cut, like Working for Families, Best Start, KiwiSaver, and so on.' Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said Hipkins 'has flip-flopped all over the place' and questioned how he would pay for reinstating pay equity as it had been. 'Is he going to tax for it or is he going to borrow for it, if he wants to unroll all those changes?' Luxon said it was a 'balanced Budget', which was focused on growth, and supporting people with the cost of living and on frontline services. Meanwhile, Winston Peters said he was proud of the SuperGold rates relief, and money for railways and defence. 'Everybody's going to make that statement, they're proud of this and proud of that,' he said. 'Most of them will say they're proud of their portfolio, but I suppose the fact is we could have made a big mistake and done what I've seen in the past. 'We have some revolutionary Budget we pay for for the next 15 years and I've seen a couple of those in my time.' He hinted, over the next few months, New Zealanders would see other changes that would assure them of 'a better economic outcome', thanks to his party's influence, although stayed coy on what those were. ACT leader David Seymour said 'the numbers speak for themselves', as a result of Brooke van Velden's pay equity changes. He also said the increased funding for private school subsidies would make things 'vaguely fair' and that he agreed to the Incentive Boost scheme, once he saw evidence it would be effective. 'If you're going to give any kind of target a tax break, then acquiring capital equipment and goods is probably the most powerful thing you can do, if you just want to see increased capital intensity.' The Green Party came out swinging, with co-leader Marama Davidson nicknaming the Budget the 'no-ambition Budget, it's the child-poverty Budget, it's the we-don't-care-about-women Budget, it's the we-don't-care-about-rangatahi Budget, it's the we-don't-care-about-disabled-people, we-don't-care-about-Māori, we-don't-care-about-Pasifika'. 'Who do we care about? Wealthy and fossil fuel companies.' Davidson said the JobSeeker changes for 18-19 year olds was the government saying 'with their full hearts, their full chests, they are really happy to be cruel and mean to people who are already having a hard time'. Chlöe Swarbrick said the $200m towards co-investment in new gasfields was potentially a breach of the UK and EU free trade agreements. Finance Minister Nicola Willis said the KiwiSaver changes would ensure the scheme was sustainable into the future, insisting it struck the right balance. 'New Zealand faces rising costs from superannuation from an ageing population and we need to make sure that we have our house in order.' She said officials were unable to advise on how many people would opt down to the current 3 percent rate, as it involved making guesses on people's behaviour. 'That is something we'll have to see in due course. I expect there will be many New Zealanders who, until they are feeling more financially secure, may not increase their contributions. 'I think many New Zealanders will, because the default will be that you instantly go to that higher rate and people will have to think very carefully about whether they want to save less.'
Scoop
24-05-2025
- Business
- Scoop
Rabbits, Switch-Ups And Highway Robbery: Politicians, Economists React To Budget 25
Budget Day is a bit of a whirlwind. Opposition politicians, journalists and economists have just three-and-a-half hours to pore over the books, before presenting reports and analysis on what's on offer, what it means to people and, of course, come up with a hot take or two. The government found $2.7 billion a year through its changes to pay equity, cut its own contributions to KiwiSaver, told 18 and 19 year olds it would no longer pay them to sit on the couch and introduced a new Investment Boost tax incentive, which is tipped to increase New Zealand's GDP by 1 percent over the next 20 years. It was dubbed the 'Growth Budget' by the government, although the finance minister was fond of calling it the 'No BS Budget'. Economists and MPs had their own nicknames and thoughts to share. Bagrie Economics managing director Cameron Bagrie called it the 'Rabbit Budget', as the pay equity changes allowed the government to pull the rabbit out of the hat and generate savings. "Looking forward, we need a few more rabbits to pull out of a few more hats in the 2026 and 2027 Budgets, because we're still a long way away from returning to surplus." The books are not expected to return to surplus until 2029 and, even then, it will be a modest surplus of $200 million. Bagrie said New Zealand still had not seen the hard yards. "The savings are all backloaded into 2027, 2028 and 2029, and those savings to be delivered are going to require that we need tight expenditure control in the 2026, 2027 and 2028 Budgets. We know that spending pressures, including the funding of the defence force, are going to be pretty intense." Council of Trade Unions economist Craig Renney, who is also on Labour's policy council, said it was a 'Highway Robbery Budget' with the changes to pay equity. "It's not a Budget that's delivering for working people and it doesn't appear to be a Budget with working people in mind," he said. "We're taking money straight out of the pockets of low-income workers. "We're taking benefits off 18-19 year olds, we're taking money from the education budget. We're taking money off Vote Māori Development, Vote Pacific Peoples and we're spending it on defence." On the KiwiSaver changes, Renney wanted assurances that employers would not put pressure on low income workers to deliberately take the 3 percent level, so their own costs did not go up. He praised the Investment Boost scheme, saying New Zealand was "way behind" in capital investment and the state had a big role to play. Baucher Consulting tax expert Terry Baucher was also a fan of the scheme, saying it was more generous than many predicted. He was less impressed with what was in the Budget for low-income families. "The government has increased the Working for Families threshold to $44,900, but that's still below what someone on minimum wage would earn annually and it's $10,000 lower than it should be, if it had been increased in line with inflation since June 2018," he said. "Arguably, you could say that the burden for that Investment Boost is being paid by low-income workers and I don't agree with that. It's a disappointment in that regard." He said New Zealand faced a "demographic crunch", and there was not enough in the Budget to encourage families to work and raise their children in New Zealand. "We're taking money from our younger working people to give to older, richer property-owning people and long-term, in my view, that's not a recipe for a growth economy." Baucher said he understood why the government was means-testing KiwiSaver at higher levels, although did not support reducing the government contributions overall. Inequality researcher Max Rashbrooke said the KiwiSaver changes were mean-spirited. "It is the state increasingly saying, 'If you're going to save, you're on your own. We're putting the burden on you to save out of your pay and we're putting the burden on your employer, rather than collectively, the state, trying to ensure that people are saving well for their retirement'." Infometrics chief executive Brad Olsen said it was the 'Switch-up Budget' as the government tried to spend more, while cutting back. "There are some big trade-offs that the government has had to make in Budget 2025 and I think, definitely for some groups, they'll be saying that's probably the wrong trade-off," he said. Olsen was "fairly relaxed" on the KiwiSaver changes and did not believe the current government contribution rate stimulated a huge amount of further investment that otherwise would not happen. "I don't think it'll shift the dial in terms of more or less investment from Kiwis by getting rid of that government contribution, but by increasing both the employer and employee contribution rates, that will stimulate more savings over time and I think that's positive." He was also onboard with cutting the government contribution rate entirely for those earning more than $180,000, saying the government needed to get its books in order and it did not need to give those earning good money that much support. New Zealand Initiative chief economist Eric Crampton said the government was making slow progress towards the smaller structural deficit in 2029 and needed to sort it before the demographic changes really started to bite in the 2030s. "At some point, we have to wonder about the fiscal responsibility provisions in the Public Finance Act matter, because those effectively say you should not be running structural deficits for a decade, and we will have been running structural deficits for a decade. The ones during Covid were excusable - now, not so much." Crampton agreed that greater means-testing and targeted assistance to those in need made sense. "[It] can help towards fiscal consolidation," he said. "I don't need to be getting a subsidy towards my KiwiSaver. "It's better to target these sorts of things. Similarly, a bit tighter targeting in Working for Families can make a lot of sense. "It's good that they are stopping the inflation indexing of repayment thresholds for student loans. It would be nice if they took a few other measures." He pointed to re-instating interest on student loans as a measure that the government could take, while at the same time, increasing scholarships that are means-tested. No commitment from Labour on $12.8b pay equity return Fresh from delivering their speeches to the House, a rolling maul of MPs from government and opposition came across Parliament's tiles to take questions. First up was Labour leader Chris Hipkins, who continued to denounce the pay equity changes, particularly now there was a number put on them. He committed to reversing the changes, should Labour return to the government benches, but couldn't be nailed down on the exact amount. Primarily, that was because he was unsure how the government had arrived at its figures. "They still haven't released their calculations on how they arrived at the savings they've delivered today, so I can't give you numbers," he said. "I can give you the principle, which is the principle is very clear for us. We don't believe that women should be paid less than men." He also said the Working for Families changes were "a measly amount, won't even pay for a block of butter" and the government cutting its KiwiSaver contributions "raided the future retirement savings" of New Zealanders. "I think most Kiwi families will be feeling that any advantage they got from tax cuts last year has been well and truly absorbed by increased costs in other areas," Hipkins said. "Their power bills are still going up, their rents are still going up. "Prices of food are still going up and they're finding other forms of government support are now being cut, like Working for Families, Best Start, KiwiSaver, and so on." Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said Hipkins "has flip-flopped all over the place" and questioned how he would pay for reinstating pay equity as it had been. "Is he going to tax for it or is he going to borrow for it, if he wants to unroll all those changes?" Luxon said it was a "balanced Budget", which was focused on growth, and supporting people with the cost of living and on frontline services. Meanwhile, Winston Peters said he was proud of the SuperGold rates relief, and money for railways and defence. "Everybody's going to make that statement, they're proud of this and proud of that," he said. "Most of them will say they're proud of their portfolio, but I suppose the fact is we could have made a big mistake and done what I've seen in the past. "We have some revolutionary Budget we pay for for the next 15 years and I've seen a couple of those in my time." He hinted, over the next few months, New Zealanders would see other changes that would assure them of "a better economic outcome", thanks to his party's influence, although stayed coy on what those were. ACT leader David Seymour said "the numbers speak for themselves", as a result of Brooke van Velden's pay equity changes. He also said the increased funding for private school subsidies would make things "vaguely fair" and that he agreed to the Incentive Boost scheme, once he saw evidence it would be effective. "If you're going to give any kind of target a tax break, then acquiring capital equipment and goods is probably the most powerful thing you can do, if you just want to see increased capital intensity." The Green Party came out swinging, with co-leader Marama Davidson nicknaming the Budget the "no-ambition Budget, it's the child-poverty Budget, it's the we-don't-care-about-women Budget, it's the we-don't-care-about-rangatahi Budget, it's the we-don't-care-about-disabled-people, we-don't-care-about-Māori, we-don't-care-about-Pasifika". "Who do we care about? Wealthy and fossil fuel companies." Davidson said the JobSeeker changes for 18-19 year olds was the government saying "with their full hearts, their full chests, they are really happy to be cruel and mean to people who are already having a hard time". Chlöe Swarbrick said the $200m towards co-investment in new gasfields was potentially a breach of the UK and EU free trade agreements. Finance Minister Nicola Willis said the KiwiSaver changes would ensure the scheme was sustainable into the future, insisting it struck the right balance. "New Zealand faces rising costs from superannuation from an ageing population and we need to make sure that we have our house in order." She said officials were unable to advise on how many people would opt down to the current 3 percent rate, as it involved making guesses on people's behaviour. "That is something we'll have to see in due course. I expect there will be many New Zealanders who, until they are feeling more financially secure, may not increase their contributions. "I think many New Zealanders will, because the default will be that you instantly go to that higher rate and people will have to think very carefully about whether they want to save less."
Kiwiblog
17-05-2025
- Business
- Kiwiblog
A good win for solidarity
The Herald reports: Treasury has changed its tune at the last minute and given a handful of organisations the green light to attend next week's Budget lock-up. The move follows a legal threat and public pressure over why organisations that had previously been allowed to see embargoed Budget documents, were suddenly barred. While the groups are welcoming the revision, some are scratching their heads over why Treasury gave business-affiliated groups accreditation before it did the same for the Council of Trade Unions. Business New Zealand, the New Zealand Initiative and the Taxpayers' Union were emailed by Treasury last night, saying they could attend the May 22 Budget lock-up at the Beehive. However, the Council of Trade Unions was only given the okay this morning, after it challenged Treasury, and the 'right wing' organisations came in to bat for their 'left wing' friend out of principle. The New Zealand Initiative's Eric Crampton told Treasury he would only accept the invitation on the condition the Council of Trade Unions' Craig Renney was accredited too. A lawyer for the Taxpayers' Union yesterday sent Treasury a letter saying it would file an application for judicial review if Treasury didn't 'urgently' reconsider the group's application to attend the lock-up, and respond by Friday. The lawyer claimed declining the organisation's application was a breach of its legal rights. I'm very pleased to see Treasury come to their senses and do the right thing. Also pleased to see the principled stand by the NZ Initiative to decline to attend if the CTU wasn't allowed their economist to attend. I understand the Taxpayers' Union even considered sending Renney in one of their three spots – something which would have been both hilarious and awkward! The TU, the NZ Initiative and the CTU don't agree on much. But it is a good thing that they stand together on this.
Scoop
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Brooke Van Velden Meets With Council Of Trade Unions After Pay Equity Changes
Article – RNZ A 'frank' half-hour meeting was Brooke van Velden's first with the Council of Trade Unions since 2023., Political Reporter The Council of Trade Unions has met with Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van Velden, hot on the heels of pay equity changes passing under urgency last week. The half-hour meeting from 10.15am was the minister's first with the union since 2023, despite her predecessors typically booking monthly catch-ups. It also coincided with an event hosted by Labour and the Greens to bring union members to Parliament to hear from them about the effects of the pay equity changes. Ahead of the meeting, CTU national secretary Melissa Ansell-Bridges told RNZ the minister's approach to the relationship was unprecedented, but they hoped to get straight into the substantive issues. 'This is really an opportunity to, I suppose, begin some of those conversations that we haven't been able to have with her to date. Obviously top of the agenda is going to be pay equity and we're going to be conveying to Brooke how we think the changes that they have made are absolutely heading in the wrong direction.' She said they would be asking for the 33 in-progress claim scrapped last week to be restored, and the changes to the Act reversed. Other matters they hoped to raise included calls for a ban on engineered stone, the government's policy of banning partial strikes, and other health and safety policies. Speaking to media afterwards, she said the pay equity request had been rejected. CTU President Richard Wagstaff said it was 'frank'. 'Frank, a frank meeting. There weren't any profanities … we're all professional, but certainly we were demanding answers to the attack on workers that we're seeing.' 'We did ask her, for example, is there an equal pay claim that she didn't support and she couldn't give an answer to it. We did ask her, had she read the task force report on health and safety emanating from Pike [River disaster], she couldn't really give an answer. We did ask her, did she agree with holding the minimum wage down under under inflation, she couldn't really give an answer. 'So it was that kind of a meeting, but in many ways, that is true to form in our experience with this minister.' Ansell-Bridges said they asked if the billions of dollars in savings the government expected would come from fewer claims being settled or claims being worth less. 'She said the advice that she had received was that there shouldn't be any fewer claims. Now, that differs from our initial analysis which shows that actually a number of the claims will either be outright prohibited or will struggle to meet those thresholds to initiate. 'The other point is about the value of the settlements and the minister at that point referenced the changes around comparators, and it's clear that she anticipates that the changes to the comparator system will ultimately lead to settlements of a lower value.' Wagstaff noted the 33 claims being set back with no possibility of backpay would also mean significant savings. 'The care and support claim which covers 70,000 workers looks to be cancelled and can't even be taken now, according to … what they passed in legislation, because it was settled in 2017 – so that's a that's a massive cut in spending just on those alone.' He said they also requested a regular meeting with the minister be set up but this was also rejected. 'She just said it's not what she does. I can't explain that. 'There was a question in the House by the Greens, actually, to the minister saying 'why won't you meet with the CTU?', and she indicated that we haven't asked for it, even though we have asked half a dozen times. And so at that point we decided to put in another request and she agreed, which we're very pleased she did.' He said she had given no indication that any further meetings would take place. 'Previous governments – not just the last government, but in fact, with John Key's government – we had a regular meeting with the prime minister, a regular meeting with the minister of finance, a regular meeting with the minister of workplace relations and safety, and other meetings with other government ministers. This government is quite different. 'We have the odd meeting with different ministers but those key ones – prime minister, finance and workplace relations – we're basically shut out.' Van Velden said the meeting was 'quite odd'. 'The feedback that I've received since then, it's pretty weird that you have people wanting to have meetings with you and then hold press conferences afterwards,' she said. 'A lot of the questions that I received weren't actually things that I could respond to, but look I don't really go around talking about the conversations that I've had in the meetings that I hold and I hope in some ways, this gives a little bit of perspective as to why I don't hold regular meetings with the CTU. 'It's pretty weird and odd that people hold press conferences about the things that I say in my meetings.' She said she would not hold regular meetings with the CTU 'if they're just going to have press conferences after each of our meetings'. Pressed on whether the CTU was right in their understanding of her officials' advice, she said it did show the 'large majority' of people who brought the 33 claims previously would be able to again in future. 'That may or may not be the case. But also I'm not a crystal ball gazer, I can't actually tell which people are going to potentially, potentially continue to bring a claim, or whether or not they'd like to pre scope those. 'We are intentionally looking to tighten some of the rules from what Labour had so that we can find gender based discrimination, rather than conflation with inflation or other labour market dynamics, and so it could be the case that the comparators that they choose to use may be different in the newer claims. 'You've then got to ask the unions, why is it then that they have intentionally used comparators that may give them different figures than they currently are able to use.' Ansell-Bridges helped facilitate the earlier event for opposition MPs and media to hear from union members about the equity changes, which were passed within a couple of days of being announced. Labour and Green MPs had planned the event – held in Labour's larger caucus room – last week, inviting a handful of women and their families. Decrying a newspaper opinion article in Parliament which criticised female MPs for backing the legislation, van Velden quoted from it – using the c-word in Parliament seemingly for the first time in New Zealand's history. Labour's spokesperson for Women Jan Tinetti addressed that at the start of the meeting on Thursday, saying there had been some 'deliberate distractions' from the government over the reaction to its move. She said she was frustrated and angry about the legislative changes and would continue to fight them. Speaking to The Detail, at least one academic – Canterbury University senior law lecturer Cassandra Mudgway – also said it was a distraction, and it was a stance Ansell-Bridges also backed. 'It's a distraction from the real issues. And the real issues is that the Equal Pay Act has been gutted, and over 300,000 working women are ultimately going to be worse off as a result of those changes. So it's a very deliberate obfuscation of the issue by the minister and the government.'
Scoop
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Brooke Van Velden Meets With Council Of Trade Unions After Pay Equity Changes
Article – RNZ A 'frank' half-hour meeting was Brooke van Velden's first with the Council of Trade Unions since 2023., Political Reporter The Council of Trade Unions has met with Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van Velden, hot on the heels of pay equity changes passing under urgency last week. The half-hour meeting from 10.15am was the minister's first with the union since 2023, despite her predecessors typically booking monthly catch-ups. It also coincided with an event hosted by Labour and the Greens to bring union members to Parliament to hear from them about the effects of the pay equity changes. Ahead of the meeting, CTU national secretary Melissa Ansell-Bridges told RNZ the minister's approach to the relationship was unprecedented, but they hoped to get straight into the substantive issues. 'This is really an opportunity to, I suppose, begin some of those conversations that we haven't been able to have with her to date. Obviously top of the agenda is going to be pay equity and we're going to be conveying to Brooke how we think the changes that they have made are absolutely heading in the wrong direction.' She said they would be asking for the 33 in-progress claim scrapped last week to be restored, and the changes to the Act reversed. Other matters they hoped to raise included calls for a ban on engineered stone, the government's policy of banning partial strikes, and other health and safety policies. Speaking to media afterwards, she said the pay equity request had been rejected. CTU President Richard Wagstaff said it was 'frank'. 'Frank, a frank meeting. There weren't any profanities … we're all professional, but certainly we were demanding answers to the attack on workers that we're seeing.' 'We did ask her, for example, is there an equal pay claim that she didn't support and she couldn't give an answer to it. We did ask her, had she read the task force report on health and safety emanating from Pike [River disaster], she couldn't really give an answer. We did ask her, did she agree with holding the minimum wage down under under inflation, she couldn't really give an answer. 'So it was that kind of a meeting, but in many ways, that is true to form in our experience with this minister.' Ansell-Bridges said they asked if the billions of dollars in savings the government expected would come from fewer claims being settled or claims being worth less. 'She said the advice that she had received was that there shouldn't be any fewer claims. Now, that differs from our initial analysis which shows that actually a number of the claims will either be outright prohibited or will struggle to meet those thresholds to initiate. 'The other point is about the value of the settlements and the minister at that point referenced the changes around comparators, and it's clear that she anticipates that the changes to the comparator system will ultimately lead to settlements of a lower value.' Wagstaff noted the 33 claims being set back with no possibility of backpay would also mean significant savings. 'The care and support claim which covers 70,000 workers looks to be cancelled and can't even be taken now, according to … what they passed in legislation, because it was settled in 2017 – so that's a that's a massive cut in spending just on those alone.' He said they also requested a regular meeting with the minister be set up but this was also rejected. 'She just said it's not what she does. I can't explain that. 'There was a question in the House by the Greens, actually, to the minister saying 'why won't you meet with the CTU?', and she indicated that we haven't asked for it, even though we have asked half a dozen times. And so at that point we decided to put in another request and she agreed, which we're very pleased she did.' He said she had given no indication that any further meetings would take place. 'Previous governments – not just the last government, but in fact, with John Key's government – we had a regular meeting with the prime minister, a regular meeting with the minister of finance, a regular meeting with the minister of workplace relations and safety, and other meetings with other government ministers. This government is quite different. 'We have the odd meeting with different ministers but those key ones – prime minister, finance and workplace relations – we're basically shut out.' Van Velden said the meeting was 'quite odd'. 'The feedback that I've received since then, it's pretty weird that you have people wanting to have meetings with you and then hold press conferences afterwards,' she said. 'A lot of the questions that I received weren't actually things that I could respond to, but look I don't really go around talking about the conversations that I've had in the meetings that I hold and I hope in some ways, this gives a little bit of perspective as to why I don't hold regular meetings with the CTU. 'It's pretty weird and odd that people hold press conferences about the things that I say in my meetings.' She said she would not hold regular meetings with the CTU 'if they're just going to have press conferences after each of our meetings'. Pressed on whether the CTU was right in their understanding of her officials' advice, she said it did show the 'large majority' of people who brought the 33 claims previously would be able to again in future. 'That may or may not be the case. But also I'm not a crystal ball gazer, I can't actually tell which people are going to potentially, potentially continue to bring a claim, or whether or not they'd like to pre scope those. 'We are intentionally looking to tighten some of the rules from what Labour had so that we can find gender based discrimination, rather than conflation with inflation or other labour market dynamics, and so it could be the case that the comparators that they choose to use may be different in the newer claims. 'You've then got to ask the unions, why is it then that they have intentionally used comparators that may give them different figures than they currently are able to use.' Ansell-Bridges helped facilitate the earlier event for opposition MPs and media to hear from union members about the equity changes, which were passed within a couple of days of being announced. Labour and Green MPs had planned the event – held in Labour's larger caucus room – last week, inviting a handful of women and their families. Decrying a newspaper opinion article in Parliament which criticised female MPs for backing the legislation, van Velden quoted from it – using the c-word in Parliament seemingly for the first time in New Zealand's history. Labour's spokesperson for Women Jan Tinetti addressed that at the start of the meeting on Thursday, saying there had been some 'deliberate distractions' from the government over the reaction to its move. She said she was frustrated and angry about the legislative changes and would continue to fight them. Speaking to The Detail, at least one academic – Canterbury University senior law lecturer Cassandra Mudgway – also said it was a distraction, and it was a stance Ansell-Bridges also backed. 'It's a distraction from the real issues. And the real issues is that the Equal Pay Act has been gutted, and over 300,000 working women are ultimately going to be worse off as a result of those changes. So it's a very deliberate obfuscation of the issue by the minister and the government.'
