I will be releasing Labour’s trade policy tomorrow at my campaign launch in Nelson. That is a good place to do it because the Nelson region is built on fine primary tradeable commodities. And yet our exporters, from pipfruit growers to the forestry sector, are having difficulties of one sort or another. It should be up on the website by about 5.30pm. Watch this space – or one like it!
Red Alert
Archive for the ‘Manufacturing’ Category
Today
Posted by Clare Curran on August 22nd, 2011A man came to see me. He was laid off a few weeks ago. He’s a mechanical engineer. Highly skilled. He has five children.
His wife has cancer. Inoperable cancer.
He was chosen for redundancy. Involuntary. Along with others. He thinks probably because of his outspokenness.
He can’t pay his power bill this month.
There are no jobs. He needs to stay in Dunedin for his wife’s treatment. Meanwhile, she has been forced to work part time to keep food on the table.
This man was a valuable contributing member of our society. He paid taxes. His skills were worth something to our economy.
As a direct result of this government’s policies, he, and others like him, do not have jobs.
What are his options?
Yes I’m angry, because this is the reality that more people are facing each day.
And I heard today that the foodbanks in Dunedin are empty.
Dunedin is just one place where there is rampant poverty and need. But it’s where I live and these are the people I represent.
The importance of being Labour
Posted by Clare Curran on August 22nd, 2011Have had a gutsful of the white-anting of Labour from both the right and the left of politics.
White-anting is an Australian expression. It means undermining. I lived there for 14 years, worked for the trade union movement and as a public relations professional. Proud of my time there, the work I did and the people I worked with.
I have strong enduring relationships with people across the right and left of the Labour spectrum. In the last few days there’s been some very strong messages delivered about the importance of core Labour values. The compelling reasons for unions. And why there is a need for a strong Labour Party. And why Australia (like NZ) needs a strong manufacturing base.
All completely relevant here.
Paul Howes is the National Secretary of the Australian Workers Union. Over the weekend he sounded a strong warning that the high Australian dollar spells the death sentence for Australia’s manufacturing export markets and for other sectors of the economy such as in-bound tourism and that diplomatic pressure should be put on on China to float the Yuan.
Today we see what he was referring to with the announcement of 1400 manufacturing jobs from BlueScope Steel in Port Kembla, south of Sydney. This is devastating.
THE loss of more than 1000 jobs at BlueScope Steel is a devastating blow for the retrenched workers and the manufacturing industry, the Australian Workers Union (AWU) says.
BlueScope confirmed today that it will shut down its number six blast furnace at Port Kembla, south of Sydney, and close its Western Port hot strip mill, east of Melbourne.
“Today’s announcement is devastating for the families of more than 1400 workers who will be feeling the trauma and distress that comes with the loss of a secure income,” AWU national secretary Paul Howes said in a statement.
It further strengthened the union’s call for action on the Chinese yuan, a robust anti-dumping system and strong local procurement policies for the resources sector, Mr Howes said.
The BlueScope closures sent a clear signal that Australian manufacturing was facing its worst crisis since the Great Depression, he said.
The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union (AMWU) said Australian manufacturing was under extraordinary pressure from the booming dollar, record high terms of trade and unfair competition from illegal foreign dumping.
“Local industry is not being given a fair go to work on the mining and resource projects which are driving the dollar sky-high, AMWU national secretary Dave Oliver said in the joint statement with Mr Howes.
Australia could not just rely on mining, Mr Oliver said.
Strong Labour policies focussing on our economic sovereignty; owning our own future are what this country needs.
Kiwi jobs. Kiwi skills. Too important to sell overseas
Posted by Clare Curran on July 9th, 2011
Some photos from today’s rally for Hillside jobs in Dunedin. (Not quite sure what I was laughing about, or what on earth Pete is doing in the second pic).
More than a thousand people turned out on a bitterly cold Saturday to voice their disgust at the government and Kiwirail’s actions and attitudes in procuring lower quality, cheaper rolling stock from overseas, rather than having it made at home. Keeping skilled workers employed, and an important manufacturing industry sustainable.
The city is united on this issue. The Mayor, the Chamber of Commerce chair, three MPs, the union, Greenpeace and a Green candidate spoke.
My message was essentially that we have to fight for our city. For Dunedin’s future. Because this government won’t. We need these jobs, we needs these skills, we need this industry and it’s economic good sense. I also read out a strong message from Phil Goff.
The government and Kiwirail are telling lies about the cost of Kiwi trains. It’s time they were unmasked.
Our country is not a corporation. And this government can’t decide that parts of our country aren’t worth bothering about because our population base is lower than other parts, and because it’s a Labour town. Dunedin will fight back.
Dr Brash : The Washington Consensus is dead – the party’s over!
Posted by Darien Fenton on November 4th, 2010Reading the 2025 Taskforce report #2 reinforces what a lucky escape we had in 2005 when Don Brash and National were beaten by Labour in the general election.
If that hadn’t happened, by now we would be in Brashimania – the country’s assets would be sold off or privatised, NZ Rail and Air NZ would be in the hands of overseas interests, steadily being stripped again of assets, the minimum wage would be gone, the labour market re-regulated in an even more draconian way than the ECA, public health and education would be kneecapped with “competition”, early childhood education would only for those who could afford it, and welfare reforms would ensure that only the “deserving poor” had any assistance – with Dr Brash deciding who they were.
Don’t get me wrong. John Key’s NACTs are just as dangerous. They’re just a bit more careful and devious, because they’re scared of public opinion and know the electorate won’t tolerate another Douglas, Ruth or Brash attack.
The 2025 Taskforce, led by Dr Brash and his cheerleading group for ACT is costing NZers half a million bucks. It’s got another year to run. Yet, its members continue to insist that the failed policies of the 1980s and 1990’s will work now – even when they didn’t work before. Cuts to workers rights, minimum wage, cuts in Working for Families, an increase in the cost of student loans, and severe cuts in other government programmes,along with privatisation of more assets and services, including health and education are all there in report # 2.
Its pleasing to see the NZ Manufacturers and Exporters Association (NZMEA) criticising the report. The NZMEA says that the report is long on diagnosis – (yes, that’s right, we all know Australian wages are way ahead of ours)- but short on therapy.
They say, in their press release that
The Taskforce’s recommendations largely echo the Washington Consensus. This approach has not seen substantial export growth from the countries that have applied it. Earlier this year, the IMF recommended more pragmatism on exchange rates from small economies instead.
And Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the Managing Director of the IMF said more just last Monday with this :
…Such ‘growth models’ were unbalanced and unsustainable and inequality may have actually stoked this unsustainable model. In countries like the United States, borrowing seemed to allow ordinary people to share in the rising prosperity…. Inequality can dampen economic opportunity, by preventing the poor from accessing the financing needed to pursue profitable investments. It can divert people toward unproductive activities.
The Washington Consensus is dead. What we need are new ideas and new thinking – the kind that is coming through in Labour policy development that had Labour Party conference delegates buzzing about a different future under a Labour government.
The Taskforce seems incapable of new thinking and should be disbanded. It discredits the government who will once again ignore its recommendations – and it makes ACT look even more stupid than they are.
Dr Brash should give NZ taxpayers our half a million bucks back and accept that the party’s over.
Productive employment relations?
Posted by Carol Beaumont on July 17th, 2010Members of the National Government say the word productivity a lot. I certainly agree there is a need to lift our productivity as a nation. However I get annoyed that there is little real action and no focus at all on workplace productivity.
In fact the track record of this Government, including the recent announcements on extending the 90 Day No Rights provisions and limiting union access to workplaces, has taken a cost reduction approach to employment relations. Lifting employment standards and improving the quality of our workplaces doesn’t feature.
In my speech on the Prime Ministers Statement to Parliament in February I made the following comments :
Where is the government investment in industry and regional economic development? Where is the recognition that we need to lift the quality of workplaces – the wage rates, the work conditions, the quality of interaction. Productive employment relations. This Government sees workers and their rights as a cost to be reduced.
Look at the double speech in the PMs statement. Under the section on Better Regulation we have:
“Whether labour laws are imposing excessive costs on the country and holding back opportunities to create jobs”
Holidays and PGs not to mention union access to workplaces and collective bargaining. Remember what this meant last time and if we want to find reasons for the gap in income between Australia and NZ this is a good place to start.
Attacking workers rights and reducing current standards will not encourage the motivated workforce we need. Failing to invest in improving skills in our workplace will similarly not provide for a motivated workforce able to work smarter. There were no new initiatives in the area of workplace learning in the Budget. In fact under the Labour portfolio we see money moved from the Skills area to a completely different area of work. The Skills Forum spoken about very positively by the Prime Minister at the CTU conference last year has met once under this Government (still we know how reliable undertakings made by John Key to the union movement are!)
A recent report on management practices in the manufacturing industry showed that NZ managers surveyed are “average to middling by global standards” Furthermore people management emerges as the weakest area. And we are going to give poor people managers the right to fire at will for 90 days (except for discrimination covered by the Human Rights Act)!
A specific need identified in the Skills Strategy agreed by the last Government, Unions and Employers was around the need for more management training. We need forward looking people management that recognises that paying more not less, improving conditions of employment and genuine flexibility and respecting the need for independent worker voice that is engaged in improving the workplace and the products and services created/provided is what is required. Workplaces that are focussed on lifting productivity and where productive employment relations are seen as an integral part of this. We have some of these businesses but we need many more.
Fundamental to this approach is respect. I know from my own experience as a union organiser that workers value and desire respect at work. Respect for them as individuals but also respect for their unions. They also want to work with and for employers they respect.
I would like to see a real focus on productive employment relations but it will not happen under the approach being promoted by this National Government.
Controlling our own future: Kiwi Jobs Bill
Posted by Clare Curran on July 14th, 2010I believe that New Zealand can only control its own future with strong, sustainable local industries. I would imagine that everyone reading this would agree, even if we don’t agree on how you get them.
Today I released the Kiwi Jobs Bill (PDF link), my first Private Members Bill which aims to maximise opportunities for competitive local businesses when tendering for large government projects.
The Bill establishes a Commission of Inquiry to compare government procurement policies in Australia and other comparable jurisdictions, to determine whether the NZ Government can have a policy that gives preference to local procurement without breaching our international trade obligations.
The Commission of Inquiry would have a deadline of six months to report to Parliament and the Minister for Economic Development would be required to decide within 30 days how its recommendations could be implemented.
New Zealand industries should be given the best possible chance of taking up new work within our shores by getting full, fair and reasonable opportunities to compete for tenders and major projects.
The Kiwi Jobs Bill is timely and important to provide encouragement and certainty to New Zealand industries that their skills and capabilities are important to our nation and our economic future.
Currently we have a situation with KiwiRail about to embark on a formal tender process to build 13 electric locomotives and 114 ‘cars’ for the electrification of Auckland rail.
Both KiwiRail and the government have ignored the strong independent economic case by reputable Berl Economics detailing the benefits of having Auckland’s new trains built in New Zealand, which could create up to 1275 new jobs.
It is currently unlikely that the tender document will contain a preference clause giving a stronger weighting to a build that includes Kiwi content.”
Most of our trading partners have clauses giving preference to local companies in tendering for government contracts
These government procurement policies recognise that value for money is about a broader economic benefit and not just about lowest price.
Many New Zealand industries would receive a boost from such a policy, including manufacturing, engineering and ICT.
The most pressing example is obviously KiwiRail’s Hillside and Woburn workshops, whose skills and capacity would be taken more seriously with preference given to local content, in building trains for Auckland.
If we want to build the NZ economy, and one of the main ways to do that is to ensure our local industries are given maximum opportunities to flourish.
Instead, will we see a situation where the National Government will accept only the lowest-cost bid, or a bid from a big overseas company writing Kiwi skills off as irrelevant and ignoring them.
National is reviewing its procurement policies, but the review appears more motivated by saving money than by maximising opportunities to local industry and thereby boosting our economy.
I think it’s time we gave ourselves a better chance. I hope you will support the Bill.
Poll result
Posted by Clare Curran on June 18th, 2010Last week Red Alert published its first poll.
The question was: Should Auckland’s new trains be built in NZ?
The results were:
- Yes (75%, 534 Votes)
- No (25%, 176 Votes)
Total Voters: 710
A fairly resounding result and a high response rate we think.
There were 53 comments and a very thoughful discussion about the issues around kiwi content in large government contracts and the capacity of NZ to build carriages and engines.
As you’ll see below we have another poll running and plan to run them three times a week on Mondays, Wednesday and Fridays.
We welcome your suggestions for polls.
Clare
Something new on Red Alert
Posted by Clare Curran on June 9th, 2010We have just added a poll function. The first one is below. You have a week to respond. I hope you will.
You can send us suggestions for future polls. You know the rules.
Should Auckland's new trains be built in NZ?
- Yes (75%, 537 Votes)
- No (25%, 177 Votes)
Total Voters: 714
Loading ...Is this an important issue or what?
Posted by Clare Curran on June 8th, 2010
Today nearly two hundred plucky workers from Hillside Engineering in Dunedin joined by dozens of cold, wet but staunch fellow Dunedin-ites stood in the Octagon in a freezing southerly to tell the National Government that we need a strong rail industry.
Kiwi jobs for kiwi workers was the message, along with Can we build trains in Dunedin? Yes we can is the answer. At a competitive price. And in NZ Inc’s interests.
The case has been made. We have the skills and the capability. If we can’t compete on labour costs with the likes of China, we certainly can on quality and whole of life costs. And ability to deliver on time. The case for kiwi content stacks up.
Across New Zealand, people think it’s important that we build here, rather than go overseas. It’s a no brainer. Especially right now. We need to build confidence in our homegrown industry. We need to retain a manufacturing base. It’s at the heart of Dunedin’s economy, let alone important for the rest of NZ.
Why should the profit go elsewhere? At the very least, the bulk of the actual work should be done here even if we don’t hold the contract.
The EOI contains a limp clause about NZ content. It’s not good enough. There are two particular people standing in the way of NZ’s rail engineering industry having a future. Transport Minister Steven Joyce and Kiwirail CEO Jim Quinn. Neither of them believe in rail’s future. Both are trying to talk it down and to cast those who do support it as emotional rail enthusiasts.
Interesting, given the huge resurgence that rail is having elsewhere in the world. Quinn has a job to do. Joyce has a political imperative. The thing about Joyce is that he’s too cold, too clinical and economic rationalists don’t always resonate.
And he’s made a mistake. He slagged off at Kiwi skills. And he hasn’t even bothered to come and have a look at Hillside.
Leaving aside jokes about animal behaviour, if Steven Joyce can’t make it to Dunedin to have a look at Hillside’s ability to manufacture trains, then he’s chicken. It’s obviously not a priority.
Today Labour had five MPs at the rally. Myself, Pete Hodgson and David Parker from Dunedin. Trevor Mallard from Hutt South (where Kiwirail has its Woburn workshops) and Darren Hughes, Labour’s Transport spokesperson. Phil Goff sent his apologies and his support along with a bunch of other Labour MPs.
Labour thinks that Kiwi content should have preference in the tender for the carriages and engines for Auckland’s rail system.
What does the Government think? Is this important or isn’t it?
So Steven, come to Dunedin. Are you chicken or what?
Watch this clip from Local Channel 9 to see footage from today’s rally
Tax “Switch” is same old from National
Posted by David Parker on May 21st, 2010I’ve been thinking about the hype the government has created about their ‘tax switch’. True, by increased borrowing, they have shuffled a slightly larger amount than was expected, but it is still mainly a shuffle between taxing income and consumption which will have a limited effect on the shape of our economy.
National has done what they always do – increased the proportion of tax paid by low and middle income groups and disproportionately decreased the tax paid by the wealthy. They have left capital untaxed. The switch to GST from income tax for low and middle income groups is largely illusory. GST is effectively a tax on labour for these groups, given that they have to spend all or virtually all of their wages/salaries on GST’d goods and services.
For those with higher disposable incomes, the tax package make a significant change. They pay less. Their capital and intergenerational wealth transfers remain untaxed. Inflated asset values – now beyond the means of younger New Zealanders who have not inherited – will remain inflated. The intergenerational inequities on the economic as well as environmental front remain. Social mobility will continue to decline. Bernard Hickey’s analysis of this in recent months about this is spot on, and this budget does not do much to change it.
The tax bias driving excessive investment in property relative to the productive/ tradeable export sector remains. The constraint on claiming depreciation on buildings is a very timid step given the seriousness of the imbalance we now have. It hits commercial property as much as residential, and does not remove the more significant anomoly that allows a property investor to deduct from their other income losses from borrowing costs on their rental invesments, yet leaves them free to pocket capital gains (as an aside gains on property are seen as capital for tax purposes because the statutory definition of income assumes that income has a short-term temporal frequency, when in reality those who rent-out or farm property for a long term gain have a longer-term view of what amounts to their income).
Our lack of savings is only indirectly touched, and really only for those already better off.
As I said in my post earlier today (its worth reading the BERL budget analysis linked to that post), the current account deficit projected by this budget sees it climbing ever higher - up to 7%. So plainly the budget does not forsee a substantial increase in exports or savings.
So where is the roughly 3% pa growth going to come from? Well, as the BERL budget analysis shows, the assertion about a substantial increase in non-residential investment seems optimistic. If that growth does not come to pass at all, or comes from a return to current account deficit funded consumption and property investment, then we will be even more in the cart.
The ’switch’ is not turning the tradeable sector on and the speculative sector off.
The ’switch’ happening here is more akin to its other definition – a whip – being used to protect capital and the capital class by decreasing their share of tax paid and increasing the proportion paid by the less wealthy.
If this was going to fundamentally rebalance the economy, I might be able to see at least some justification. But the sad reality is this budget does little to rebalance the economy. Rather it does just what National always does. It ‘rebalances’ taxes, not the economy.
Keeping Kiwi jobs Kiwi#2
Posted by Clare Curran on May 9th, 2010Solid support on the doorsteps of Dunedin yesterday for the right for Dunedin’s Hillside workshops to bid for the work to build Auckland’s electric trains. Even people who identified as National Party voters signed the railworkers’ petition.
Steven Joyce made a mistake this week when he dismissed the capability of NZ’s rail workers to build locos and units for Auckland.
NZers do have faith in Kiwi skills and Kiwi ingenuity. This government doesn’t and they aren’t interested in creating Kiwi jobs.
If you support the railworkers at Hillside and the Hutt to get this work, download the petition here, print and get as many signatures as you can.
Does Steven Joyce believe in Kiwi skills and capability?
Posted by Clare Curran on May 3rd, 2010Today a strong independent economic case has been made to spend close to $400m of taxpayers money building locomotives and rolling stock in New Zealand for Auckland’s electric rail. But it seems the government and Kiwirail senior management don’t want and don’t believe in a kiwi build.
A Berl economics report commissioned by the Dunedin City Council and the Rail and Maritime Transport Union details the benefits of having Auckland’s 13 electric locomotives and 114 “cars” built in New Zealand, creating up to 1275 new jobs.
The city council, chamber of commerce, local engineering firms, Hillside Workshops, the rail union and all of Dunedin’s MPs have been working on this issue for months quietly behind the scenes. Supported by the Hutt workshops and Hutt MP.
NZ has two railways workshops with considerable capacity and skill. Seems the Minister and the CEO of Kiwirail are impervious to this and intent on an overseas build. A draft capability report from within Kiwirail would appear to say otherwise. What is going on?
This is what Steven Joyce had to say in this morning’s ODT:
Transport Minister Steven Joyce, however, yesterday said he understood KiwiRail was not intending to enter a bid. It had never done anything similar before, and there were international companies with a lot of experience.
“It would be a bit like saying we need a fleet of high-end cars, let’s go and get our mechanics to build them, instead of buying them off Audi or BMW, or somebody who does this sort of stuff for a living.”
and in the NZ Herald:
But KiwiRail chief executive Jim Quinn, while welcoming the effort put into the exercise, said last night that the Government-owned corporation was unlikely to bid for its own contract.
“We haven’t made our final call but think it would be very unlikely,” he told the Herald. “It is hard to see any way we could be genuinely competitive – people around the world build these things for a living, and EMUs [electric railcars] are a sophisticated bit of kit.”
It’s extraordinary that Jim Quinn, not in the job for long, would dismiss out of hand his orgnisation’s own capacity. Where is his evidence? It’s my understanding that we do have the capacity to build in NZ.
The Berl report points out that while New Zealand could produce the rolling stock more cheaply than Europe or North America but “it may be possible” for Asian sources to supply at a cheaper price than elsewhere.
“However, the quality and expected life could be less and it was possible the “whole of life” cost of the rolling stock could be higher than for that made in New Zealand.
Why can’t we build these electric trains in New Zealand Mr Joyce? Perhaps not every single bit of them. But we do have the skills and the capacity. And isn’t there a very strong case for keeping Kiwi jobs and skills Kiwi?
Doesn’t say much for the Minister’s confidence in the Kiwi workforce and Kiwi skills. Does this reflect the government’s view?
On-shoring a new trend?
Posted by Clare Curran on April 18th, 2010I came across this article from the Kentucky Courier Journal.
Some US manufacturers, including General Electric are finding reasons to bring manufacturing back to the US.
There’s even some buzz words being created around it.
“On-shoring,” “back-shoring,” and “re-shoring” are all buzzwords for a U.S. manufacturing industry hopeful for change after decades of being weakened by cheaper labor overseas.
If this is a trend, I’m all for it.
Hat tip: Andrew Casey
Should this be the way forward for NZ?
Posted by Clare Curran on February 21st, 2010Whirlpool plans to start closing its refrigerator plant in Evansville, Indiana, on 26 March eliminating 1,100 local jobs. It has decided to shift its operation to Mexico. Why? Lower labour costs.
As the world’s largest home appliance maker, Whirlpool makes a healthy profit.
The AFL CIO (our CTU equivalent) reports Whirlpool has has received a $19 million economic matching grant that should be creating jobs in America. They’ve started a petition to Keep it made in America
Sound familiar?
In April 2008 Fisher and Paykel announced about 1,000 jobs, or 28 percent of the total work force, would be lost in New Zealand, Australia and the northern United States as plants were relocated to Mexico, Thailand and Italy, where a similar number of new jobs would be created.
Fisher and Paykel said at the time that labour costs in Mexico were about a sixth of those in New Zealand.
Sooo… what happens next time there’s a plan to outsource, offshore, a lot of NZ jobs?
Or, next time there’s the potential to create and provide certainty for a bunch of jobs in New Zealand through investment in local infrastructure, such as the electrification of Auckland rail.
Are cheaper labour costs (in China, Mexico) the bottom line? Or should our economic development rest upon a wider set of values? Maintaining and building skills. Encouraging local innovation. Building our own export base. Keeping kiwi jobs kiwi.
And what should the role of government be?
Who let the dogs out?
Posted by Sue Moroney on September 23rd, 2009Why is Employer militancy starting to break out throughout the country?
This from the Farmer’s Weekly:
Crying over spilt milk
Posted by Sue Moroney on September 19th, 2009Talley’s-owned Open Country Cheese was caught pouring sludge from its factory in Waharoa directly into the Waitoa River this morning because it insists on using scab labour to keep production going instead of paying standard industry wages and giving some job security to its staff.
The use of untrained staff during this dispute has now polluted the river and we’ll all have to pay through our rates in the Waikato to have it cleaned up.
Apparently, sludge which is normally collected by trucks and spread on farms, has poured into the river instead.
That river runs down the back of the dairy farm I was brought up on. I just hope the environmental damage is reversible.
I certainly know that OCCs harsh stance against its staff can be reversed, so I’ll be heading over to join the picket line tomorrow.
Now OCC has proven to be irresponsible on two fronts – firstly they undermine the industry with sub-standard wages and conditions and now they think they can pollute the waterways.
That’s a disgrace.
Fonterra
Posted by Damien O'Connor on September 18th, 2009Fonterra announced it’s capital restructuring plan. Now the farmers will get a chance, maybe if they are not too busy on their farms, to attend a meeting to discuss the plans. This process is one of the most important facing NZ in the near future, up there with ETS consideration. This is arguably our largest and only truly NZ private company. Its success is our success. In a low payout year with high debt levels already, Fonterra’s ability to raise capital internally could not be proposed at a worse time for many farmers. I hope they can but I have concerns that the ultimate outcome of the restructure is the inevitable float of Fonterra on the open market. Who then might get to control of our biggest company and second biggest export earner next to tourism??? Sir Henry Van der Hayden should have an inkling having served on the board of NZX until recently. I’m sure he can see the danger looming.
On the bus – heading to Hawera
Posted by Carol Beaumont on August 11th, 2009As the Labour Caucus starts the second day of our bus trip a rousing chorus of happy birthday to colleague Ruth Dyson was tunefully delivered.
I am looking forward to another day of talking to people in their community. Yesterday I was lucky enough to participate in two workplace visits – a small manufacturer in Levin and a large manufacturer in Wanganui. The Levin visit reinforced for me the tenacity that small business owners need as they constantly search for markets. In this case knowing that at the time they get to any sort of scale products will end up being produced by Chinese manufactuers. Key messages were – networking and collaborating with other NZ manufacturers is vital, encouraging innovation by all employees, not just designers and the need for better government procurement processes. The Wanganui visit was heartening as the company was picking up output again. Key messages – the importance of focussing on health and safety, the value of a good relationship with the union and
