Time to take a stand against cheap liquor

Another liquor store is the last thing needed in my Wigram electorate, but it looks like this will happen if an application by Imperial Discount Liquor is granted to open a new Henry's Liquor Outlet in the Christchurch suburb of Upper Riccarton.

Three local residents’ associations are joining forces on 20 August to stage a protest against the proposed license; they’ve had enough as this area has become beset with public drinking, made worse since the closure of the inner city, post-earthquakes. Just last week, four students were arrested, cars were vandalised and police were pelted with bottles after yet another student party in Riccarton turned into what was described by police as “highly dangerous”.

What has particularly annoyed me lately is the increasing vehemence with which the alcohol lobby is attacking those who have expressed concern about the harm caused by alcohol. Both Doug Selman, from the National Addiction Centre at the University of Otago, and Ross Bell, from the New Zealand Drug Foundation, have been painted as wowsers and zealots, by an industry which appears to have resorted to name calling instead of intelligent argument.

The deadline for the reporting to Parliament of the Alcohol Reform Bill, which proposes revamping the laws around the sale and purchase of alcohol, has been pushed back until the end of August such has been the volume of submissions received by the Select Committee. Most of the submissions from lobbyists like the Hospitality Association argue that alcohol abuse should be addressed through education and by targeting the problematic minority, and that drinkers should take personal responsibility for their own actions.

While, on the surface, that might sound reasonable, it is quite the opposite and no less cynical than a tobacco industry that made similar arguments in previous times. Without doubt, the liquor industry is peddling one of the most addictive drugs in society, and one which is at the root cause of man’s social, economic and physical ills. Those who are addicted or affected are generally the least well equipped to deal with it in a responsible manner or to listen to educational messages, and the hospitality industry knows this only too well.

I often ask myself what some of those same people would say if their own children or family members became addicted to an illegal drug such as methamphetamine. Would they blame the dealers, or would they simply suggest that their own affected family member take personal responsibility? I think we know what the answer to that question is.

If you want to make a stand against the increasing number of cheap booze outlets, you can join me at the protest against the proposed Henry’s store at 1.30pm on Saturday 20 August. We will assemble at the corner of Athol and Peer Streets from 12.15pm, then walk down Peer Street to Yaldhurst Road at 1.00pm. Lianne Dalziel, Kennedy Graham and I are confirmed speakers. Professor Doug Sellman, a local of the area, will also be there.

Dunne's support for winter power rebate welcomed

I support Peter Dunne’s policy for a winter power rebate that he announced this week because ever since 2002, I have pushed for a return to consumers of some of the big profit increases from the state-owned power companies to help our most vulnerable citizens with winter power bills.

Low income households could be given $200 toward winter heating costs and power companies would still contribute as much to the government as they did last year. $200 would mean some households had a month of relief from winter heating costs. For superannuitants, beneficiaries and people who have lost their jobs in the downturn, it would make a huge difference.

Mr Dunne is right to identify the seriousness of winter power needs, and the simplicity of doing something about it through a winter rebate but the policy is easier to implement if the power companies are kept in public hands. Mr Dunne is supporting National's plan to sell the power companies.

If you want the power companies to be involved in helping people, it's best if the people own them. And if they are sold, power bills are only going to rise.

Youth suicide will rise over next few years

It is not too dramatic to predict that youth suicide will increase significantly over the next two to four years as a result of shockingly high youth unemployment rates. Youth unemployment in New Zealand is currently at 27 per cent, and is among the highest levels in the developed world. High suicide rates follow high unemployment as sure as night follows day, and teenagers in New Zealand face increasing levels of unemployment, crime, and depression. As such, they are materially worse on all these scores than the average of other developed countries.

In the nineties, the four peak years of youth unemployment were followed by the highest youth suicide rates in the Western world and we are set for a repeat unless strong action is taken. Our suicide rates are already at high levels, with over five hundred deaths a year and we are about to see a repeat of what occurred in the nineties, when the four peak years of youth unemployment were followed by the highest youth suicide rates in the Western world.

The NZ Institute's recently published “More Ladders, Fewer Snakes” report shows that New Zealand has the lowest median school leaving age in the OECD. Over a third of 16 year olds report being usually or always bored at school, and want to leave as soon as possible. Teenagers in New Zealand face high levels of unemployment, crime, and depression - materially worse on all these scores than the average of other developed countries.

As the NZ Institute reported, “Unemployment is central; it is an important consequence of disadvantage. Disengaged, inactive youth are at greater risk of lower earnings, needing social assistance, criminal offending, substance abuse, teenage births, suicide, homelessness and mental or physical ill health”.

The tragedy of youth unemployment is only the beginning. The Government’s choice to do nothing effective about youth unemployment will have tragic consequences.

My full statement on youth suicide can be found here, with further comments here.

Crematorium consent highlights disconnect between plans

Building a new crematorium right in the middle of a potential residential and retail area might seem quite illogical, but that is exactly what will happen if action is not taken to align the Christchurch City Plan with the Canterbury earthquake recovery strategy.

Plans for the redevelopment of Sydenham, right in the heart of my old electorate, were unveiled last week and it was a refreshing look at what could be done to revitalise an old area of town which was very badly damaged, in particular during the February earthquake. After consultation with the local community, urban designers have come up with plan for a mix of retail, commercial and residential developments, with green areas and better traffic flow.

It was therefore of course, with some alarm, that local property and business owners and residents discovered that consent was given last November for an Auckland business to install a crematorium furnace, with permission to burn up to five bodies a day right in the heart of the area. The application for consent to run the business was not required to be notified by the regional authority and the type of business was consistent with current local body zoning.

The problems with this is that consent for the crematorium was approved under the existing, (and old City Plan), while planning for the revitalisation of Sydenham will require new zoning and other regulatory changes. It is a problem which will crop up repeatedly during the rebuilding phase, as property owners assert their rights to build to any current legal requirement rather than in a way which is consistent with recovery design. And it is a problem which should have been foreseen; consent for the crematorium was granted after the September earthquake, at a time when it was already known a great deal of redevelopment would be taking place nearby.

In my view it is completely undesirable to have a crematorium in a residential and retail area and I have asked the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Authority to look at the matter to see if urgent changes can be made to ensure this sort of thing does not happen again.

For the story, go here.

Funding cuts could spell end of Playcentres

Cutting funding from Playcentres makes no sense and could mean the end of this 70-year-old Kiwi institution if proposed changes to early childhood education are introduced by the National Government. An ECE Taskforce Report, commissioned by Education Minister Anne Tolley to investigate early childhood sector spending, proposes reducing Playcentre funding by 63 per cent. Under a proposed new funding mechanism in the Taskforce Report, Playcentres are classified as something called “other”, and that means drastic funding cuts.

Throughout their 70 years of operation, Playcentres have provided a relatively low-cost, high-quality early childhood option for parents, and this is not something we can afford to lose. They were first set up in Wellington in 1941 to help families and communities through the war, and they are just as relevant today making a positive contribution to early childhood education.

Playcentres not only benefit children, but they show parents how to be positively involved in their children’s early childhood education, and this has been shown by research to be positive for children, their families and their communities. The Prime Minister’s own chief science advisor has continually stressed the importance of early childhood education, noting that investment in the earlier years results in less expenditure later. Ann Tolley claims that National is supportive of Playcentres, but slashing their funding by 63 per cent is a strange way to show support. Without this funding the future of Playcentres is doomed.

We cannot keep asking our communities for money when so many of the families using the centres are already struggling to make ends meet. The Minister needs to step up and show her support by rejecting the Taskforce’s recommendations and keep our Playcentres running.

Along with Megan Woods, Labour’s Wigram candidate for this year’s General Election, I will be meeting with local Playcentre administrators to do what I can to help them keep their funding.

A rally is being planned for the 7th August in Christchurch on behalf of Canterbury’s Playcentre Association.

Capital Gains Tax (CGT) finds favour

It takes a courageous political party to go into an election with a policy of introducing a new tax, so it was heartening to see Labour’s tax policies announced last month with capital gains (CGT) tax as its central theme.

A Horizon Poll released last week showed that the proposed CGT has attracted more support than opposition, with 40.9 per cent support, 34.1 opposed and 25 per cent who are either neutral or don’t know.

The Horizon Poll, the first nationwide poll conducted since the policy announcement, revealed that the 1201 people surveyed were polarised by income, property ownership and party vote. There is strong support for a CGT among Labour, Green, and New Zealand First voters and strong opposition to it among National, Act and United Future supporters.

I have always favoured a fairer, progressive tax system, and Labour’s move to increase the top tax rate, make the first $5,000 of income tax-free and to remove GST from fresh fruit and vegetables are all policies which I support.

New Zealand is one of the few countries in the world that does not have a CGT tax, and I have always thought it unfair that those, for example, with investment properties or making huge profits on the share market were not required to pay tax, while ordinary New Zealanders pay tax on every cent of income including interest earned on savings. The other problem has been that property speculators have pushed up the prices of residential houses, making it much harder for young New Zealanders to buy their first homes.

It is, therefore, no great surprise that the Horizon Poll showed that business managers, executives and farm owners show the highest opposition to a CGT, while workers, professionals, superannuitants and senior Government officials show a high level of support.

The Horizon Poll can be found here.

For details of the tax, go here.

For comment, go here.

New Zealand by Design

In late July I was fortunate enough to be invited to address the launch of a new book, New Zealand by Design, a history of New Zealand product design, written by Michael Smythe. The book deals with product design, beginning in pre-European times and then moving to pioneer-era inventions and finally to the modern era.

What I enjoyed about the book is that it celebrates the Kiwi essence in many of the things we take (or took) for granted, from Maori tools and traps, to gumboots, wool, presses, electrical appliance and even the kitchen sink.

In many cases, New Zealand’s isolation gives us the drive to innovate and to solve problems using our wits. It also gives us the freedom to try things out. That’s how the Hamilton Jet was developed, for example, and countless other kiwi problems solved. Many people refer to it as the “Number 8 wire” approach, but for me it’s not that simple. It’s the application of intellectual grunt to solve a problem and that is what, in many cases, sets New Zealanders apart.

When I set up a Ministry of Economic Development, one of our priorities in getting our economy growing and creating jobs, was to sell to the world many more products that rely on our unique skill and creativity. Because uniqueness and creativity command a premium, they are the key to lifting our incomes.

An advantage Kiwis have is that few can match our unique creativity. Design is one of the most important expressions of that. Not just styling, but the conception of how a product will be used, a view about what it is for and a unique way to bring that concept into being.

A book like Michael Smythe’s will help inspire people and make them aware of inspirational New Zealand designers, so I welcome it. It will help us to see how design made a difference to creating the New Zealand we have today.

My full speech can be found here.

Dental policy hits the mark

“What a great initiative” was typical of many message I received from people after the launch of my policy calling for the introduction of free dental care for all.

The same person went on to say that they could not think of any of her friends and associates who go to the dentist for check-ups as the cost for dental work is so prohibitive. “My husband”, she said, “had a tooth removed recently and it cost $290.00 for less than a one hour appointment. We have no children at home, budget carefully and both work, but would happily pay more for fizzy drinks to subsidise this”.

She continued: “I would like to see this initiative expanded to include lollies and chocolates so they can become treat foods again. It is crazy that coke and the like cost less than milk and water”.

Similarly, the Nelson Mail reported a pregnant Motueka mother of four unable to afford to get a tooth removed and so was reduced to relying on painkillers for relief. In my view it cannot be healthy for a pregnant woman to be taking high levels of pain relief when the problem could be resolved through an extraction. As it is, if this woman is forced to go into hospital for emergency dental care, if the abscess gets too bad, the cost to the taxpayer will be even higher.

I could not help but compare the support I have had from the public for the dental policy with that of radio talkback host Mike Yardley who seemed to think it an outrage that fizzy drinks should be taxed to pay for the dental decay caused by those drinks. The problem with radio hosts such as Yardley, is that they are the very people who can afford dental care and do not have to worry about the plight of those who cannot.

Our dental policy can be found here.

Tags: Drug and alcohol abuse