Feb 2010
ACC relies on out-dated methods to test injuries
25/02/10 15:09 Filed in: News Releases
Accident victims who are being turned away by ACC because of fictitious ‘pre-existing conditions’ are in some cases being assessed by non-practicing elderly surgeons who rely on text books dating back to 1934, says MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader, Jim Anderton.
An orthopaedic surgeon has contacted Jim Anderton to express concern that 85% of their patients needing surgery after accidents are being rejected on below-average assessments by a company contracted and paid by ACC to test claims.
“This seems a clear conflict of interest.
“A specialist surgeon currently practicing, and using the latest equipment and clinical research decides that a plumber who has fallen at work needs shoulder surgery as a result of the accident. Then retired surgeons, who are no longer specialists, probably never used an MIR scan in their working lives, and quoting from a text book which dates back to 1934, reject the claim on behalf of ACC, because of ‘pre-existing’ conditions.”
“The onus of proof had been reversed by ACC and is now on the patient to prove that their injury occurred at the time of their accident, and not ACC’s job to prove that there was a pre-existing condition. And yet there has been no public debate about this.
“It’s happened behind the scenes, and the public have been kept in the dark.”
The surgeon who contacted Mr Anderton’s office recently saw a seventeen year old who plays water polo competitively. The teenager had dislocated her shoulder and needed surgery. But ACC rejected her claim on the basis that the girl was ‘pre-disposed to dislocate her shoulder because she was very flexible.’
“That’s rubbish; it’s like saying someone is ‘pre-disposed to break their arm.’
“The typical patient being rejected is fit and well, and has been involved in occupations like the construction industry up until the time of their injury.”
“There’s no money saved here; specialists predict that up to 50% of these people who don’t get treatment straight away will have marked deterioration as they get older and will require much more expensive surgery later in life,” says Jim Anderton
An orthopaedic surgeon has contacted Jim Anderton to express concern that 85% of their patients needing surgery after accidents are being rejected on below-average assessments by a company contracted and paid by ACC to test claims.
“This seems a clear conflict of interest.
“A specialist surgeon currently practicing, and using the latest equipment and clinical research decides that a plumber who has fallen at work needs shoulder surgery as a result of the accident. Then retired surgeons, who are no longer specialists, probably never used an MIR scan in their working lives, and quoting from a text book which dates back to 1934, reject the claim on behalf of ACC, because of ‘pre-existing’ conditions.”
“The onus of proof had been reversed by ACC and is now on the patient to prove that their injury occurred at the time of their accident, and not ACC’s job to prove that there was a pre-existing condition. And yet there has been no public debate about this.
“It’s happened behind the scenes, and the public have been kept in the dark.”
The surgeon who contacted Mr Anderton’s office recently saw a seventeen year old who plays water polo competitively. The teenager had dislocated her shoulder and needed surgery. But ACC rejected her claim on the basis that the girl was ‘pre-disposed to dislocate her shoulder because she was very flexible.’
“That’s rubbish; it’s like saying someone is ‘pre-disposed to break their arm.’
“The typical patient being rejected is fit and well, and has been involved in occupations like the construction industry up until the time of their injury.”
“There’s no money saved here; specialists predict that up to 50% of these people who don’t get treatment straight away will have marked deterioration as they get older and will require much more expensive surgery later in life,” says Jim Anderton
0 Comments
Fisheries decision shows Fish Act is ‘hopeless’
23/02/10 17:06 Filed in: News Releases
A decision that stopped a fishery being closed in 2008 risked judicial extinction of a species of dolphin, Progressive leader and Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.
A High Court judge has today decided a case brought by the fishing industry against Jim Anderton’s decision, as fisheries minister, to close some fisheries to protect rare and endangered species of dolphin.
The fishing industry won an injunction in 2008 against the closure in some parts of the coastline. The judge has taken until now to decide the case.
The injunction meant the fishery remained open in spite of the fact that an acknowledged risk to the species existed from continued fishing.
“Since the injunction was granted I understand at least one more dolphins has been caught. Big fishing companies, through their court action, risked judicial extinction of an entire species of dolphin,” Jim Anderton said.
The High Court today upheld the original decision in the Manukau harbour, West Coast of the South island, Te Waewae Bay and Bluff.
“It’s too easy for self-interested applicants to get an injunction that threatens a species’ survival.
“I couldn’t change the Act to ensure sustainability because of the influence of big fishing money on political parties.
“Two years have gone by while the dolphins were at risk, only for it to turn out that the judge found the original decisions were justified
“A ministerial decision to close the fishery can only be made after substantial scientific evidence is compiled and enormous amounts of evidence and advice weighed. It’s hopeless for a Judge to be able to come in and substitute his decision for the original one. Decisions to close the fishery should only be set aside when the minister’s decision is manifestly unreasonable.
“In 2008 I tried to change the law to ensure the sustainability of our fisheries. Those efforts were thwarted by NZ First, National and the Maori Party. It later emerged that NZ First had taken $9990 secret ‘donations’ from big fishing. I believe the Maori Party and the National party need to disclose whether they have accepted donations from those interests as well.
“The fishing industry’s behaviour is grotesque and selfish. Enormous damage would be done to New Zealand’s exports if a species went extinct on our watch, but those who took the injunction were clearly putting their own interests first,” Jim Anderton said.
A High Court judge has today decided a case brought by the fishing industry against Jim Anderton’s decision, as fisheries minister, to close some fisheries to protect rare and endangered species of dolphin.
The fishing industry won an injunction in 2008 against the closure in some parts of the coastline. The judge has taken until now to decide the case.
The injunction meant the fishery remained open in spite of the fact that an acknowledged risk to the species existed from continued fishing.
“Since the injunction was granted I understand at least one more dolphins has been caught. Big fishing companies, through their court action, risked judicial extinction of an entire species of dolphin,” Jim Anderton said.
The High Court today upheld the original decision in the Manukau harbour, West Coast of the South island, Te Waewae Bay and Bluff.
“It’s too easy for self-interested applicants to get an injunction that threatens a species’ survival.
“I couldn’t change the Act to ensure sustainability because of the influence of big fishing money on political parties.
“Two years have gone by while the dolphins were at risk, only for it to turn out that the judge found the original decisions were justified
“A ministerial decision to close the fishery can only be made after substantial scientific evidence is compiled and enormous amounts of evidence and advice weighed. It’s hopeless for a Judge to be able to come in and substitute his decision for the original one. Decisions to close the fishery should only be set aside when the minister’s decision is manifestly unreasonable.
“In 2008 I tried to change the law to ensure the sustainability of our fisheries. Those efforts were thwarted by NZ First, National and the Maori Party. It later emerged that NZ First had taken $9990 secret ‘donations’ from big fishing. I believe the Maori Party and the National party need to disclose whether they have accepted donations from those interests as well.
“The fishing industry’s behaviour is grotesque and selfish. Enormous damage would be done to New Zealand’s exports if a species went extinct on our watch, but those who took the injunction were clearly putting their own interests first,” Jim Anderton said.
Kiwibank stays in Kiwi market - and makes a profit
19/02/10 16:08 Filed in: News Releases
Kiwibank has made a profit during the worst recession in decades by staying in the New Zealand market and refusing to gamble on overseas currencies like the big Australian banks, says MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton.
“This is a remarkable achievement, worth celebrating.”
Kiwibank announced today that it had made a profit of $23.5 million after tax for the six months ended December 31, 2009.
“It’s succeeded because it gets most of its deposits from, and does most of its lending in the New Zealand market,” says Jim Anderton.
“One of its strongest areas is its support for small and medium sized businesses in New Zealand.”
Kiwibank was the only bank to front up at last year’s Parliamentary Banking Inquiry. The inquiry established that the ‘big four’ Australian owned banks did not pass on all of the cut in the OCR (Official cash Rate) to home owners, credit card holders and businesses in New Zealand.
The inquiry also criticised the Australian owned banks for contributing to our volatile exchange rate. Exporters are particularly hurt by sudden and frequent changes in the exchange rate.
“In contrast to Kiwibank, the Australian banks borrowed a lot of money from overseas to fund their lending in New Zealand. This has a significant effect on our exchange rate by holding it up regardless of the real economic circumstances of New Zealand.
“The export sector, including farmers make up roughly 30% of our GDP - about $40 billion per year. But suffer the most from currency instability.
“I would like to see the government provide more capital funding for Kiwibank in order to promote more competition amongst banks and increase the share of local funding for lending.
“The Australian owned banks don’t have a vested interest in strengthening the New Zealand economy. Kiwibank does. It stayed in the New Zealand market, and today its success is our success too,” says Jim Anderton.
“This is a remarkable achievement, worth celebrating.”
Kiwibank announced today that it had made a profit of $23.5 million after tax for the six months ended December 31, 2009.
“It’s succeeded because it gets most of its deposits from, and does most of its lending in the New Zealand market,” says Jim Anderton.
“One of its strongest areas is its support for small and medium sized businesses in New Zealand.”
Kiwibank was the only bank to front up at last year’s Parliamentary Banking Inquiry. The inquiry established that the ‘big four’ Australian owned banks did not pass on all of the cut in the OCR (Official cash Rate) to home owners, credit card holders and businesses in New Zealand.
The inquiry also criticised the Australian owned banks for contributing to our volatile exchange rate. Exporters are particularly hurt by sudden and frequent changes in the exchange rate.
“In contrast to Kiwibank, the Australian banks borrowed a lot of money from overseas to fund their lending in New Zealand. This has a significant effect on our exchange rate by holding it up regardless of the real economic circumstances of New Zealand.
“The export sector, including farmers make up roughly 30% of our GDP - about $40 billion per year. But suffer the most from currency instability.
“I would like to see the government provide more capital funding for Kiwibank in order to promote more competition amongst banks and increase the share of local funding for lending.
“The Australian owned banks don’t have a vested interest in strengthening the New Zealand economy. Kiwibank does. It stayed in the New Zealand market, and today its success is our success too,” says Jim Anderton.
Animal Welfare Amendment Bill
18/02/10 20:10 Filed in: Speeches
Animal Welfare Amendment Bill
Speech Notes for the House
See Jim Anderton’s news release on this issue. Click here.
In New Zealand we’ve always had a close connection both on a social and economic basis with animals.
Our economic success is based on animal-derived products.
But we are also proud of our ethical approach to the welfare of our animals.
We care about what happens to them, and we get upset when they are mistreated, whether on farms or in homes.
So I welcome this Bill today because it toughens up our ability to protect our animals and makes offenders pay for mistreatment.
But I’m not naive about the issues. Those whose incomes depend on animals can’t afford to be overly sentimental. They and we grow animals to provide food for New Zealanders and the rest of the world.
Starting out in the workforce in the fifties and sixties, I spent enough time in the freezing works of New Zealand to see a few things that would make us cringe today. It made me cringe even then.
But anyone working with animals or simply owning an animal can and should commit to acting humanely. And most people do.
This Bill doesn’t target the overwhelming majority of farmers, the producers and pet owners who work within the animal welfare guidelines. It targets the small minority who wilfully, recklessly or because of psychological impairment, mistreat animals.
It’s not hard to think of recent examples where animals are kept in inhumane conditions:
The sight of starving and neglected animals on our TV screen focuses everyone’s minds.
New Zealand’s niche in the world is that we are pure, clean and environmentally friendly.
In our markets consumers are becoming more and more demanding.
They are asking searching questions about issues like environmental responsibility. And they’re asking about animal health and welfare and the quality standards of our production processes.
The future for New Zealand’s primary exports will be in having the best answer to those questions we can possibly have.
There is no future in trying to compete on price alone against emerging low cost producers. We have to compete by guaranteeing the quality and value of our food production as a whole.
If we don’t meet the expectations of our customers - then we face potentially very damaging risks to our export base.
This Bill will make the Animal Welfare Act work better.
Increasing the penalty from three to five years shows that we take cruelty to animals seriously.
Introducing a new offence of ‘reckless ill-treatment’ of animals, alongside the existing ‘wilful ill-treatment’ will help us capture those who might otherwise not have reached the threshold for ‘wilful ill-treatment.’
But let’s be realistic; there’s no point in increasing the penalty if you don’t have people on the streets and in the fields to investigate the crime!
This government has already cut front-line staff in areas like biosecurity.
When the Hadda Beetle was found in Auckland recently - it wasn’t found by a biosecurity staffer.....It was found by a man walking his dog in an Auckland park!
So how does this government intend to police animal welfare?
MAF have exactly 5 full time staff to do animal investigations - plus 7 contractors.
The SPCA have about 100 staff who investigate animal welfare - on whom the government is heavily dependent to monitor breaches of the Animal Welfare Act - without paying anything towards their costs.
In 2008 I gave as Minister of Agriculture (through MAF) a $300,000 one-off grant – but I recognize it was no-where near enough.
When I was minister we set up with the Fast Forward Fund, which was a partnership between the private sector and government to fund research and development.
We had over $700 million in the bank, ready to fund research projects into areas like this.
For example - how do you measure animal welfare? It’s not always easy. Measuring how an animal ‘feels’ about its environment is awkward, at the very least.
In 2006, the chairman of the UK Farm Animal Welfare Council, Professor Christopher Wathes, came to New Zealand and asked - ‘how do we know whether animal welfare standards are being observed?’
When I was Minister I used to get a huge volume of letters into my office about animal welfare issues. It was clear to me then - and it still is today - that we have to be leaders, not only in animal welfare, but in measuring the standards of animal welfare.
We have to be leaders in the right techniques, as well as in the substantive results, of our measuring.
The Fast Forward Fund could have helped to deepen our research into animal welfare - and therefore improve the market position of our animal-based industries.
How is the National government going to find the right tools to measure animal welfare now?
It got rid of Fast Forward and replaced it with the Primary Growth Partnership which to date has funded precisely NO research projects.
And anyway, it only has $25 million in the kitty this year to do so.
I support this Bill because it’s ethically the right thing to do; but I question how this government intends to investigate the inevitable increase in complaints.
How is it going to equip vets, MAF staff or SPCA investigators to know when an animal is being mistreated?
Without that support, I fear this Bill will end up more as window dressing than providing the substance that a high quality animal welfare system in New Zealand will require.
Speech Notes for the House
See Jim Anderton’s news release on this issue. Click here.
In New Zealand we’ve always had a close connection both on a social and economic basis with animals.
Our economic success is based on animal-derived products.
But we are also proud of our ethical approach to the welfare of our animals.
We care about what happens to them, and we get upset when they are mistreated, whether on farms or in homes.
So I welcome this Bill today because it toughens up our ability to protect our animals and makes offenders pay for mistreatment.
But I’m not naive about the issues. Those whose incomes depend on animals can’t afford to be overly sentimental. They and we grow animals to provide food for New Zealanders and the rest of the world.
Starting out in the workforce in the fifties and sixties, I spent enough time in the freezing works of New Zealand to see a few things that would make us cringe today. It made me cringe even then.
But anyone working with animals or simply owning an animal can and should commit to acting humanely. And most people do.
This Bill doesn’t target the overwhelming majority of farmers, the producers and pet owners who work within the animal welfare guidelines. It targets the small minority who wilfully, recklessly or because of psychological impairment, mistreat animals.
It’s not hard to think of recent examples where animals are kept in inhumane conditions:
The sight of starving and neglected animals on our TV screen focuses everyone’s minds.
New Zealand’s niche in the world is that we are pure, clean and environmentally friendly.
In our markets consumers are becoming more and more demanding.
They are asking searching questions about issues like environmental responsibility. And they’re asking about animal health and welfare and the quality standards of our production processes.
The future for New Zealand’s primary exports will be in having the best answer to those questions we can possibly have.
There is no future in trying to compete on price alone against emerging low cost producers. We have to compete by guaranteeing the quality and value of our food production as a whole.
If we don’t meet the expectations of our customers - then we face potentially very damaging risks to our export base.
This Bill will make the Animal Welfare Act work better.
Increasing the penalty from three to five years shows that we take cruelty to animals seriously.
Introducing a new offence of ‘reckless ill-treatment’ of animals, alongside the existing ‘wilful ill-treatment’ will help us capture those who might otherwise not have reached the threshold for ‘wilful ill-treatment.’
But let’s be realistic; there’s no point in increasing the penalty if you don’t have people on the streets and in the fields to investigate the crime!
This government has already cut front-line staff in areas like biosecurity.
When the Hadda Beetle was found in Auckland recently - it wasn’t found by a biosecurity staffer.....It was found by a man walking his dog in an Auckland park!
So how does this government intend to police animal welfare?
MAF have exactly 5 full time staff to do animal investigations - plus 7 contractors.
The SPCA have about 100 staff who investigate animal welfare - on whom the government is heavily dependent to monitor breaches of the Animal Welfare Act - without paying anything towards their costs.
In 2008 I gave as Minister of Agriculture (through MAF) a $300,000 one-off grant – but I recognize it was no-where near enough.
When I was minister we set up with the Fast Forward Fund, which was a partnership between the private sector and government to fund research and development.
We had over $700 million in the bank, ready to fund research projects into areas like this.
For example - how do you measure animal welfare? It’s not always easy. Measuring how an animal ‘feels’ about its environment is awkward, at the very least.
In 2006, the chairman of the UK Farm Animal Welfare Council, Professor Christopher Wathes, came to New Zealand and asked - ‘how do we know whether animal welfare standards are being observed?’
When I was Minister I used to get a huge volume of letters into my office about animal welfare issues. It was clear to me then - and it still is today - that we have to be leaders, not only in animal welfare, but in measuring the standards of animal welfare.
We have to be leaders in the right techniques, as well as in the substantive results, of our measuring.
The Fast Forward Fund could have helped to deepen our research into animal welfare - and therefore improve the market position of our animal-based industries.
How is the National government going to find the right tools to measure animal welfare now?
It got rid of Fast Forward and replaced it with the Primary Growth Partnership which to date has funded precisely NO research projects.
And anyway, it only has $25 million in the kitty this year to do so.
I support this Bill because it’s ethically the right thing to do; but I question how this government intends to investigate the inevitable increase in complaints.
How is it going to equip vets, MAF staff or SPCA investigators to know when an animal is being mistreated?
Without that support, I fear this Bill will end up more as window dressing than providing the substance that a high quality animal welfare system in New Zealand will require.
ACC turning people away
18/02/10 15:09 Filed in: News Releases
Victims of vicious attacks, a 17 year old girl who had an accident at the gym, and many other accident victims, are being turned away by ACC for having non-existent ‘pre-existing conditions’, says MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader, Jim Anderton.
The Minister indicated in Parliament today that he would be willing to look at this issue if a clear pattern emerges.
“There is a clear pattern. He needs to do something now. My electorate office, and the offices of other MPs in Christchurch are inundated with stories of people who have been turned away by ACC after accidents or attacks,” says Jim Anderton.
“Wayne Direen, one of my constituents, was injured in an unprovoked attack in Christchurch, and sustained multiple injuries.
“Initially ACC paid for his treatment, but when his shoulder failed to come right, his GP referred him to an orthopaedic surgeon who recommended surgery. ACC declined to cover the surgery on the basis that the shoulder injury was a ‘pre-existing condition’ – which is clearly ludicrous.
“He had been a keen martial arts student and a rugby league player before the attack, and clearly did not have a long term shoulder problem - until the night he was attacked,” says Jim Anderton.
“Other cases include a businessman with his own cleaning business who fell at work and hurt his knee. He had no trouble with his knee prior to the accident, but again ACC declined to cover surgery on the grounds that he had a pre-existing medical condition.
“A self-employed electrician broke his elbow at work. ACC covered treatment for the bruising but not the broken bone because the break had caused on-going nerve problems which required surgery. He was forced to sell his wife’s car to pay for the operation.
“There are many more cases like this. Some of these people have contacted Nick Smith Minister for ACC, only to be sent away and told to take their case to the District Court. None of my constituents can afford to take this option, nor should they have to. Nick Smith needs to take responsibility and do something to stop this happening,” says Jim Anderton.
The Minister indicated in Parliament today that he would be willing to look at this issue if a clear pattern emerges.
“There is a clear pattern. He needs to do something now. My electorate office, and the offices of other MPs in Christchurch are inundated with stories of people who have been turned away by ACC after accidents or attacks,” says Jim Anderton.
“Wayne Direen, one of my constituents, was injured in an unprovoked attack in Christchurch, and sustained multiple injuries.
“Initially ACC paid for his treatment, but when his shoulder failed to come right, his GP referred him to an orthopaedic surgeon who recommended surgery. ACC declined to cover the surgery on the basis that the shoulder injury was a ‘pre-existing condition’ – which is clearly ludicrous.
“He had been a keen martial arts student and a rugby league player before the attack, and clearly did not have a long term shoulder problem - until the night he was attacked,” says Jim Anderton.
“Other cases include a businessman with his own cleaning business who fell at work and hurt his knee. He had no trouble with his knee prior to the accident, but again ACC declined to cover surgery on the grounds that he had a pre-existing medical condition.
“A self-employed electrician broke his elbow at work. ACC covered treatment for the bruising but not the broken bone because the break had caused on-going nerve problems which required surgery. He was forced to sell his wife’s car to pay for the operation.
“There are many more cases like this. Some of these people have contacted Nick Smith Minister for ACC, only to be sent away and told to take their case to the District Court. None of my constituents can afford to take this option, nor should they have to. Nick Smith needs to take responsibility and do something to stop this happening,” says Jim Anderton.
Government needs to resource animal welfare
18/02/10 14:07 Filed in: News Releases
Read Jim Anderton’s speech in Parliament on the Animal Welfare Bill. Click here.
“Increasing the penalty for cruelty to animals is the right thing to do, but unless you resource investigations and give staff the right tools to measure animal welfare, it’s just window dressing,” says MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton.
The Animal Welfare Amendment Bill had its first reading in Parliament today.
It will increase the maximum penalty for cruelty to animals from three years to five and introduce the new offence of ‘reckless cruelty’ to capture those offenders not covered under existing legislation.
“There are only five full-time staff at the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry whose job it is to investigate animal cruelty, plus seven contractors. They have to cover the whole country. They are already stretched, and rely heavily on one hundred SPCA volunteers to monitor breaches wherever they occur.
“Unless the National-led government is prepared to increase the number of staff and increase the resources to investigate incidents of cruelty, this Bill will unfortunately end up as little more than window dressing.
“There’s no point in increasing the penalty if you don’t have people on the streets and in the fields to investigate the crime.”
“This government has already cut front-line staff in areas like biosecurity. When the Hadda Beetle was found in Auckland recently - it wasn’t found by a biosecurity staffer. It was found by a man walking his dog in an Auckland park.
“Perhaps that same man can monitor breaches of the Animal Welfare Act while he’s at it.”
“The other problem is how do we measure animal cruelty? It’s not easy to measure how an animal feels unless you have industry tested standards.
“When I was Minister we were keen that the Fast Forward Fund of over $700 million would help to fund research into standards and techniques for measuring animal welfare.
“This would have helped us deepen our research into animal welfare. We have to be leaders in the best techniques, not just the substantive results of our measuring. But the National-led government axed the Fast Forward Fund and replaced it with the Primary Growth Partnership which has yet to fund a single research project.”
“Increasing the penalty for cruelty to animals is the right thing to do, but unless you resource investigations and give staff the right tools to measure animal welfare, it’s just window dressing,” says MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton.
The Animal Welfare Amendment Bill had its first reading in Parliament today.
It will increase the maximum penalty for cruelty to animals from three years to five and introduce the new offence of ‘reckless cruelty’ to capture those offenders not covered under existing legislation.
“There are only five full-time staff at the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry whose job it is to investigate animal cruelty, plus seven contractors. They have to cover the whole country. They are already stretched, and rely heavily on one hundred SPCA volunteers to monitor breaches wherever they occur.
“Unless the National-led government is prepared to increase the number of staff and increase the resources to investigate incidents of cruelty, this Bill will unfortunately end up as little more than window dressing.
“There’s no point in increasing the penalty if you don’t have people on the streets and in the fields to investigate the crime.”
“This government has already cut front-line staff in areas like biosecurity. When the Hadda Beetle was found in Auckland recently - it wasn’t found by a biosecurity staffer. It was found by a man walking his dog in an Auckland park.
“Perhaps that same man can monitor breaches of the Animal Welfare Act while he’s at it.”
“The other problem is how do we measure animal cruelty? It’s not easy to measure how an animal feels unless you have industry tested standards.
“When I was Minister we were keen that the Fast Forward Fund of over $700 million would help to fund research into standards and techniques for measuring animal welfare.
“This would have helped us deepen our research into animal welfare. We have to be leaders in the best techniques, not just the substantive results of our measuring. But the National-led government axed the Fast Forward Fund and replaced it with the Primary Growth Partnership which has yet to fund a single research project.”
Equal pay
18/02/10 13:05 Filed in: Speeches
Rally of the NZ Federation of Business and Professional Women for Equal Pay
Jim Anderton with other Opposition MPs and rally organisers at the rally at Parliament on Thursday, 18 February 2010.
The New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women should be proud of itself today.
You continue to keep equal pay for women in the spotlight year after year, and one day I am sure your efforts will be rewarded.
The world is changing all the time.
I see that in 1988, you marked Equal Pay Day with a Red Purse.
Now you’ve progressed to a Red Bag, which is bigger than a purse.
I’d like to think that symbolically, this marks the fact that some progress has been made in closing the pay gap between men and women.
Or perhaps it just means we have a lot more data on inequality and now we need a bag to carry it all around.
But I know that there is more to be done.
I have just done a quick check on Public Service chief executive salaries. The facts bear out that you have a good reason to be here today.
While there are 29 chief executives that are men, there is only six that are women. The male CEOs get an average salary package of between $454,166 to $463,332 – while women CEOs are paid almost to the dollar, $100,000 lower per year.
Equal pay - equity and equality in the workplace - is unfortunately still an issue. So too are conditions and attitudes to women in the workplace.
Paid parental leave has helped. But we can do a lot more to make sure that women don’t get the short straw when it comes to pay.
The Obama administration should be applauded for introducing ground-breaking equal pay legislation in the first few days of taking power.
We have to look at why women end up in lower paid situations, and look at changing not just the pay they get, but also the conditions and the flexibility in the work place.
The recommendations of the Pay and Employment Equity Taskforce should be implemented.
But what did the new Minister of Labour, Kate Wilkinson do as soon as National came to power?
She closed the Pay and Employment Equity Unit because, she said “it had completed its work”.
Clearly pay equity is not a priority for this government.
Eliminating the 12% gender pay gap has been put on the back burner.
But you have proved you’re in for the long haul, and we will keep fighting alongside you for equal pay.
Good wishes for the battle.
Jim Anderton with other Opposition MPs and rally organisers at the rally at Parliament on Thursday, 18 February 2010.
The New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women should be proud of itself today.
You continue to keep equal pay for women in the spotlight year after year, and one day I am sure your efforts will be rewarded.
The world is changing all the time.
I see that in 1988, you marked Equal Pay Day with a Red Purse.
Now you’ve progressed to a Red Bag, which is bigger than a purse.
I’d like to think that symbolically, this marks the fact that some progress has been made in closing the pay gap between men and women.
Or perhaps it just means we have a lot more data on inequality and now we need a bag to carry it all around.
- I’m proud that in government we introduced paid parental leave, and four weeks paid annual leave,
- Raised the minimum wage by over 70% or $200 per week, and
- Introduced subsidies for pre-school care so that mothers could re-enter the work force.
But I know that there is more to be done.
I have just done a quick check on Public Service chief executive salaries. The facts bear out that you have a good reason to be here today.
While there are 29 chief executives that are men, there is only six that are women. The male CEOs get an average salary package of between $454,166 to $463,332 – while women CEOs are paid almost to the dollar, $100,000 lower per year.
Equal pay - equity and equality in the workplace - is unfortunately still an issue. So too are conditions and attitudes to women in the workplace.
Paid parental leave has helped. But we can do a lot more to make sure that women don’t get the short straw when it comes to pay.
The Obama administration should be applauded for introducing ground-breaking equal pay legislation in the first few days of taking power.
We have to look at why women end up in lower paid situations, and look at changing not just the pay they get, but also the conditions and the flexibility in the work place.
The recommendations of the Pay and Employment Equity Taskforce should be implemented.
But what did the new Minister of Labour, Kate Wilkinson do as soon as National came to power?
She closed the Pay and Employment Equity Unit because, she said “it had completed its work”.
Clearly pay equity is not a priority for this government.
Eliminating the 12% gender pay gap has been put on the back burner.
But you have proved you’re in for the long haul, and we will keep fighting alongside you for equal pay.
Good wishes for the battle.
National has no plan for the economy
10/02/10 13:13 Filed in: Speeches
Jim Anderton’s Speech in Parliament on the Prime Minister’s statement
On Monday 20 October 2008, National leader, John Key told a press conference that morning that if National was elected and did “a half decent job” at growing the economy, then increasing GST would not be necessary”.
Well, presumably it has not even done a half decent job. This is the man that used to taunt the previous Labour-Progressive government about what it said it should do.
John Key, who had been overseas all those years working and shuffling money around, speculating against the New Zealand dollar and all the rest of it, he told us we had to keep our word.
He said if National did a half decent job it would not have to increase GST. So presumably it has done a lousy job, why doesn’t it resign now and go back and have another press conference?
John Key said to the Wall Street Journal: We can use this recession to transform the economy to make us stronger so that when the world starts growing again we can be running faster than other countries we compete with.
Running faster? We are actually crawling backwards. That is what has happened.
Mr Key in opposition used to taunt the previous Labour-Progressive government about Australia.
We were stagnant in terms of our research and development last year – worse still the $2000 million Fast Forward fund was cancelled. The government said it would make a leap forwards, a step change.
We found out about the step change at the Select Committee when I asked how much money has been invested in research, science and technology in the most important agricultural and horticultural sectors of the New Zealand economy.
The answer from MAF’s CEO was zero – nothing.
That would be bad if it was a mistake, but when in the House I asked David Carter, the Minister of Agriculture, why the Government had made zero investment in agriculture and horticulture, where we earn 65 percent of our overseas exchange, he said it was part of his plan.
So it was not just a mistake, it was not something that he forgot; he meant not to spend any money.
When we look at the Budget this year, $40 million is to be spent – that is over 2 years so that is $20 million a year – compared with the $700 million we put into the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, which would have built itself up with the private sector and interest to $2000 million.
That is called running when one comes out of a recession. Oh really! How does putting up GST make us run faster than the other countries that we compete with? Well, I can tell members that I was one who opposed GST. That is a matter of record, so no one can taunt me on that.
One of the reasons I did so was that it is the most regressive form of tax known to mankind. Does Mr Key know that the introduction of GST and the halving of the top tax rate that New Zealand introduced – dare I say a Labour Government introduced – in the 1980s - led to the greatest increase of wealth gap between rich and poor in New Zealand’s history.
The top tax rate was 66c in the dollar. It was halved to 33c so the people on the top rate got, and still get, a huge windfall in comparison with what they used to pay.
They got 33c on every dollar over the threshold, and that was a lot of dollars, whereas the poorest people in New Zealand were paying 20c in the dollar and they went down to 15c.
So they got 5c, the richest got 33c, and then they all paid 10 percent GST. That is fair, is it not?
The richest have discretionary income and they do not have to pay it all, whereas the poorest people have to pay all of their money on goods and services. Mr Key is either disingenuous or he thinks we are thick, because he said that is just a small increase in GST.
A small increase – 2.5 percent. If we look at the records, we see that GST income revenue for the government is about $11.55 billion. A 2.5% increase on $11.55 billion is another nearly $2 billion. That is $2000 million. That is just a small increase for Mr Key – he is a slow earner – but that means that every single New Zealander will face an increase on all goods and services they pay for.
That is particularly so for people on low incomes and medium incomes, which represents 75 percent of the country, I might tell members. Seventy-five percent of the country is on around or below the average wage.
Those people will face a $2000 million increase on all the goods and services they pay for. How does that work? And if we are to compensate those people with the $2000 million that we are forcing them to pay, then what is the point.
There is only one point if one is not going to compensate them with the same amount of money, then one cannot spend it.
But no, Mr Key thinks that we can take $2000 million out of the pockets of most New Zealanders, many of whom are below the average wage, and we will compensate them with the same amount of money that we charge them for GST, and that somehow it will all work out on the night.
If one believes that, then one believes in voodoo economics.
The Labour-Progressive Government had a research and development tax credit that would have amounted to about $380 million for science and technology, and we had to fight very hard to get that.
I thought that would be one of the policies that National would be sure to steal. Why would it not? No it cancelled it.
In the speech we heard today, there was talk about improving productivity and the rest of it in the agricultural and horticultural sector. Actually, while we were in government, the agricultural and horticultural had the highest productivity of any sector of the economy as a matter of fact, but it will not have it much longer, because all of that research and development investment has gone.
Here is what John Key said, again, in January 2008. It was a prolific year for John, that year. He stated: “Do you really believe this is as good as it gets for New Zealand? He went on to ask: “Or are you prepared to back yourselves and this country to be greater still?”
Greater still by increasing GST, canning investment in research and technology for the future, and not providing a skill base for tens of thousands of young Kiwis who will make a contribution to Australia, I presume, because that is where they will end up. We used to get hammered for that, but just watch this space as we go through this lot.
John Key’s speech lacks ideas. If one reads the 23 pages of it – I went through it and it is a big ask, I can tell members – one sees that there is not an original idea in it.
If one is looking for a strategic plan for New Zealand to do the sort of stuff he talks about, such as catching up with Australia, he mentions, among other things, rebuilding the Kopu Bridge.
I know that Queensland will be terrified at the thought that we will say that they may well have signed a contract for $100 billion of coal exports to China, but we are building the Kopu Bridge, so they should watch out. I mean is he serious?
While we are going through all this, Australia is up and running, which is the thing that we should have been planning for. We should have had a strategic plan.
I know that late in 2008, if we had won the last election, there would have been meetings of Cabinet over Christmas after that election. I think that the previous Prime Minister would have had meetings at her place over a roast chicken and would have used Christmas Day for an emergency Budget, and we would have had plans to get New Zealand through this and out of it with everything running.
What did we get from this new government?
Those members all went on holiday, and they stayed there.
We were almost wondering if they would ever meet again and whether there would be a Parliament, and one would have thought that everything in the world was hunky-dory, yet the rest of the world was melting down.
This is the result: a no think strategy.
When I was in the Labour government of the day, I used to say that there was one thing worse than a Think Big strategy, and that was a no think strategy. We had that then, and this is it now.
The thing is like Nightmare on Elm Street 3. One would think that someone would have learnt something from what did not work. This did not work.
If it had worked well, then why are we would not be in the problem we are now. If all this had worked well, then why are we in the hole we are in?
We did not go through all the meltdown in the financial sector that people in America went through and all the rest of it, so we had a great chance here.
We had good finances, low public debt, a strong financial balance sheet, and all the rest of it. That is what got us through.
That lot have no plan to deal with the crisis that we face with our own people.
This is the thought that I think I should leave the National members with: 150 relatively unskilled jobs available in a supermarket in South Auckland and 2.500 people queuing up for them.
If that doesn’t register, if those members do not know what that means, then they know nothing about New Zealand.
On Monday 20 October 2008, National leader, John Key told a press conference that morning that if National was elected and did “a half decent job” at growing the economy, then increasing GST would not be necessary”.
Well, presumably it has not even done a half decent job. This is the man that used to taunt the previous Labour-Progressive government about what it said it should do.
John Key, who had been overseas all those years working and shuffling money around, speculating against the New Zealand dollar and all the rest of it, he told us we had to keep our word.
He said if National did a half decent job it would not have to increase GST. So presumably it has done a lousy job, why doesn’t it resign now and go back and have another press conference?
John Key said to the Wall Street Journal: We can use this recession to transform the economy to make us stronger so that when the world starts growing again we can be running faster than other countries we compete with.
Running faster? We are actually crawling backwards. That is what has happened.
Mr Key in opposition used to taunt the previous Labour-Progressive government about Australia.
We were stagnant in terms of our research and development last year – worse still the $2000 million Fast Forward fund was cancelled. The government said it would make a leap forwards, a step change.
We found out about the step change at the Select Committee when I asked how much money has been invested in research, science and technology in the most important agricultural and horticultural sectors of the New Zealand economy.
The answer from MAF’s CEO was zero – nothing.
That would be bad if it was a mistake, but when in the House I asked David Carter, the Minister of Agriculture, why the Government had made zero investment in agriculture and horticulture, where we earn 65 percent of our overseas exchange, he said it was part of his plan.
So it was not just a mistake, it was not something that he forgot; he meant not to spend any money.
When we look at the Budget this year, $40 million is to be spent – that is over 2 years so that is $20 million a year – compared with the $700 million we put into the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, which would have built itself up with the private sector and interest to $2000 million.
That is called running when one comes out of a recession. Oh really! How does putting up GST make us run faster than the other countries that we compete with? Well, I can tell members that I was one who opposed GST. That is a matter of record, so no one can taunt me on that.
One of the reasons I did so was that it is the most regressive form of tax known to mankind. Does Mr Key know that the introduction of GST and the halving of the top tax rate that New Zealand introduced – dare I say a Labour Government introduced – in the 1980s - led to the greatest increase of wealth gap between rich and poor in New Zealand’s history.
The top tax rate was 66c in the dollar. It was halved to 33c so the people on the top rate got, and still get, a huge windfall in comparison with what they used to pay.
They got 33c on every dollar over the threshold, and that was a lot of dollars, whereas the poorest people in New Zealand were paying 20c in the dollar and they went down to 15c.
So they got 5c, the richest got 33c, and then they all paid 10 percent GST. That is fair, is it not?
The richest have discretionary income and they do not have to pay it all, whereas the poorest people have to pay all of their money on goods and services. Mr Key is either disingenuous or he thinks we are thick, because he said that is just a small increase in GST.
A small increase – 2.5 percent. If we look at the records, we see that GST income revenue for the government is about $11.55 billion. A 2.5% increase on $11.55 billion is another nearly $2 billion. That is $2000 million. That is just a small increase for Mr Key – he is a slow earner – but that means that every single New Zealander will face an increase on all goods and services they pay for.
That is particularly so for people on low incomes and medium incomes, which represents 75 percent of the country, I might tell members. Seventy-five percent of the country is on around or below the average wage.
Those people will face a $2000 million increase on all the goods and services they pay for. How does that work? And if we are to compensate those people with the $2000 million that we are forcing them to pay, then what is the point.
There is only one point if one is not going to compensate them with the same amount of money, then one cannot spend it.
But no, Mr Key thinks that we can take $2000 million out of the pockets of most New Zealanders, many of whom are below the average wage, and we will compensate them with the same amount of money that we charge them for GST, and that somehow it will all work out on the night.
If one believes that, then one believes in voodoo economics.
The Labour-Progressive Government had a research and development tax credit that would have amounted to about $380 million for science and technology, and we had to fight very hard to get that.
I thought that would be one of the policies that National would be sure to steal. Why would it not? No it cancelled it.
In the speech we heard today, there was talk about improving productivity and the rest of it in the agricultural and horticultural sector. Actually, while we were in government, the agricultural and horticultural had the highest productivity of any sector of the economy as a matter of fact, but it will not have it much longer, because all of that research and development investment has gone.
Here is what John Key said, again, in January 2008. It was a prolific year for John, that year. He stated: “Do you really believe this is as good as it gets for New Zealand? He went on to ask: “Or are you prepared to back yourselves and this country to be greater still?”
Greater still by increasing GST, canning investment in research and technology for the future, and not providing a skill base for tens of thousands of young Kiwis who will make a contribution to Australia, I presume, because that is where they will end up. We used to get hammered for that, but just watch this space as we go through this lot.
John Key’s speech lacks ideas. If one reads the 23 pages of it – I went through it and it is a big ask, I can tell members – one sees that there is not an original idea in it.
If one is looking for a strategic plan for New Zealand to do the sort of stuff he talks about, such as catching up with Australia, he mentions, among other things, rebuilding the Kopu Bridge.
I know that Queensland will be terrified at the thought that we will say that they may well have signed a contract for $100 billion of coal exports to China, but we are building the Kopu Bridge, so they should watch out. I mean is he serious?
While we are going through all this, Australia is up and running, which is the thing that we should have been planning for. We should have had a strategic plan.
I know that late in 2008, if we had won the last election, there would have been meetings of Cabinet over Christmas after that election. I think that the previous Prime Minister would have had meetings at her place over a roast chicken and would have used Christmas Day for an emergency Budget, and we would have had plans to get New Zealand through this and out of it with everything running.
What did we get from this new government?
Those members all went on holiday, and they stayed there.
We were almost wondering if they would ever meet again and whether there would be a Parliament, and one would have thought that everything in the world was hunky-dory, yet the rest of the world was melting down.
This is the result: a no think strategy.
When I was in the Labour government of the day, I used to say that there was one thing worse than a Think Big strategy, and that was a no think strategy. We had that then, and this is it now.
The thing is like Nightmare on Elm Street 3. One would think that someone would have learnt something from what did not work. This did not work.
If it had worked well, then why are we would not be in the problem we are now. If all this had worked well, then why are we in the hole we are in?
We did not go through all the meltdown in the financial sector that people in America went through and all the rest of it, so we had a great chance here.
We had good finances, low public debt, a strong financial balance sheet, and all the rest of it. That is what got us through.
That lot have no plan to deal with the crisis that we face with our own people.
This is the thought that I think I should leave the National members with: 150 relatively unskilled jobs available in a supermarket in South Auckland and 2.500 people queuing up for them.
If that doesn’t register, if those members do not know what that means, then they know nothing about New Zealand.
Plan for economy does not stack up
09/02/10 16:00 Filed in: News Releases
The plan for our economy announced by the Government this morning is a huge disappointment, Progressive leader Jim Anderton says.
“National thinks all we need to do to catch up to Australia is increase the price of a loaf of bread, increase the price of a litre of milk, increase the price of a litre of petrol, and put up the price of electricity,” Jim Anderton said.
“This from a prime minister who said before the election, “if National is elected and does a ‘half decent job’ at growing the economy, then increasing GST and the top tax rate will not be necessary.”
“New Zealand needs higher incomes not higher costs.
“The National Government has no plan for jobs, and no plan to increase wages.
“National slashed the R&D tax credit and abolished the two billion dollar Fast Forward fund. When it now says we need more science - those are just words. Its actions tell a different story.
Last year John Key told the Wall Street Journal, “We can use this recession to transform the economy to make us stronger so that when the world starts growing again we can be running faster than other countries we compete with.”
"His plan today will not transform the economy and make us stronger? How does putting up GST make us run faster than countries we compete with?
"Changing the tax system is not economic change. Compare that pathetic response to the Labour-Progressive government’s R&D tax credit of around $350 million, the largest ever company tax cut, a huge programme of personal tax cuts particularly for low to middle income earners and the largest ever investment in science in New Zealand.
“It just doesn’t stack up,” Jim Anderton said in Parliament.
“National thinks all we need to do to catch up to Australia is increase the price of a loaf of bread, increase the price of a litre of milk, increase the price of a litre of petrol, and put up the price of electricity,” Jim Anderton said.
“This from a prime minister who said before the election, “if National is elected and does a ‘half decent job’ at growing the economy, then increasing GST and the top tax rate will not be necessary.”
“New Zealand needs higher incomes not higher costs.
“The National Government has no plan for jobs, and no plan to increase wages.
“National slashed the R&D tax credit and abolished the two billion dollar Fast Forward fund. When it now says we need more science - those are just words. Its actions tell a different story.
Last year John Key told the Wall Street Journal, “We can use this recession to transform the economy to make us stronger so that when the world starts growing again we can be running faster than other countries we compete with.”
"His plan today will not transform the economy and make us stronger? How does putting up GST make us run faster than countries we compete with?
"Changing the tax system is not economic change. Compare that pathetic response to the Labour-Progressive government’s R&D tax credit of around $350 million, the largest ever company tax cut, a huge programme of personal tax cuts particularly for low to middle income earners and the largest ever investment in science in New Zealand.
“It just doesn’t stack up,” Jim Anderton said in Parliament.
Condolences for people of Haiti
09/02/10 14:44 Filed in: Speeches
House motion of condolence to people of Haiti
Our heart-felt condolences go to the people of Haiti today.
Over the Christmas/ New Year holiday period, we looked on in shock and horror as this fragile and poverty stricken country crumbled in a devastating earthquake.
It seemed so unfair that one of the poorest countries in the world should fall victim to a natural disaster of this magnitude.
Port au Prince is an earthquake prone capital just like Wellington.
But we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars earthquake-proofing our civic buildings.
Haitian buildings look less stable than matchbox houses.
So why was there no solid infrastructure in Haiti?
The simple answer is that Haiti is one of the poorest countries in the world and we are not.
The real tragedy for Haiti is that before the earthquake hit, the government of René Préval had committed itself to a huge program of development.
The international community, led by former US President Bill Clinton, had got behind Haiti.
A huge program was about to begin.
Finally, this country was on the right road for growth after years of dictatorship and corrupt government.
Then the earthquake hit.
Today, the international community - including New Zealand - must pick up that action plan again.
We must listen to the people of Haiti.
It is my heartfelt hope that the government will represent New Zealand and decide to play a role in that recovery phase, no matter how small our part.
We can help decide if Haiti will have a future of growth, or will return to abject poverty.
The decisions the international community make today really matter.
When NGOs and governments go in to build temporary housing and offer shelter to the thousands of homeless, we must make sure that these are built in areas where there is long term economic potential.
Because temporary housing has a habit of becoming permanent.
Not all the building should be in earthquake prone Port au Prince, for example.
Build shelters that can be expanded if the temporary dwellings end up being more permanent.
I would hope also that New Zealand will be a strong voice in the international community for jobs.
Because what the Haitian people need after the immediate relief effort is done, is jobs.
When the international community, NGOs and governments move in to help re-build the roads, the power stations and the buildings - use Haitian labour. Give the people jobs.
By all means, bring in the skilled labour Haiti doesn’t have – but Haiti doesn’t just need ‘doctors without borders’, it needs architects and engineers and accountants without borders.
Use the people of Haiti to build, and give them a living.
New Zealand will do much for the people of Haiti if we advocate for this approach to development right from the beginning.
This has been an unimaginable tragedy for Haiti. The re-building of this country must now be seen as an opportunity for a country and a people who deserve a better future.
Our heart-felt condolences go to the people of Haiti today.
Over the Christmas/ New Year holiday period, we looked on in shock and horror as this fragile and poverty stricken country crumbled in a devastating earthquake.
It seemed so unfair that one of the poorest countries in the world should fall victim to a natural disaster of this magnitude.
Port au Prince is an earthquake prone capital just like Wellington.
But we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars earthquake-proofing our civic buildings.
Haitian buildings look less stable than matchbox houses.
So why was there no solid infrastructure in Haiti?
The simple answer is that Haiti is one of the poorest countries in the world and we are not.
The real tragedy for Haiti is that before the earthquake hit, the government of René Préval had committed itself to a huge program of development.
The international community, led by former US President Bill Clinton, had got behind Haiti.
A huge program was about to begin.
Finally, this country was on the right road for growth after years of dictatorship and corrupt government.
Then the earthquake hit.
Today, the international community - including New Zealand - must pick up that action plan again.
We must listen to the people of Haiti.
It is my heartfelt hope that the government will represent New Zealand and decide to play a role in that recovery phase, no matter how small our part.
We can help decide if Haiti will have a future of growth, or will return to abject poverty.
The decisions the international community make today really matter.
When NGOs and governments go in to build temporary housing and offer shelter to the thousands of homeless, we must make sure that these are built in areas where there is long term economic potential.
Because temporary housing has a habit of becoming permanent.
Not all the building should be in earthquake prone Port au Prince, for example.
Build shelters that can be expanded if the temporary dwellings end up being more permanent.
I would hope also that New Zealand will be a strong voice in the international community for jobs.
Because what the Haitian people need after the immediate relief effort is done, is jobs.
When the international community, NGOs and governments move in to help re-build the roads, the power stations and the buildings - use Haitian labour. Give the people jobs.
By all means, bring in the skilled labour Haiti doesn’t have – but Haiti doesn’t just need ‘doctors without borders’, it needs architects and engineers and accountants without borders.
Use the people of Haiti to build, and give them a living.
New Zealand will do much for the people of Haiti if we advocate for this approach to development right from the beginning.
This has been an unimaginable tragedy for Haiti. The re-building of this country must now be seen as an opportunity for a country and a people who deserve a better future.
Prisons not for sale in New Zealand
09/02/10 13:00 Filed in: News Releases
“The core business of prisons is to keep the community safe and reduce future crime; it is not to make money,” says MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton.
He was talking to prison officers who held a rally at parliament today to protest against the government’s proposal to re-introduce private prisons in New Zealand.
Former Progressive Party MP and Minister of Corrections Matt Robson put a stop to the private sector’s involvement in the management of prisons in 2000. The National-led government is planning to reverse that policy.
“Prison management should never be a viable private business because we don’t want crime to become a growth industry for anyone,” says Jim Anderton.
“The priority must always be to have prisons that keep the community safe. For those offenders who return to society, they must be returned as safer members of our community.
“Australia is learning that its experiment in private prisons might not have been such a good idea.”
Australia has the highest proportion of inmates in private prisons (around 17%) of any other nation. There is no significant evidence to suggest that the performance of privately run prisons is better than publicly run prisons.
An empirical study of one private prison in Queensland concluded that the private sector has failed to deliver on promises of both internal and external reform.
In Victoria, the Metropolitan Women’s prison has been taken back from private operators because of serious deficiencies in the operation.
“This government is determined to go back to the future, and start the Australian experiment all over again in New Zealand.
“Imprisonment is essentially a state responsibility which should not be delegated to the private sector for cost cutting or profit,” said Jim Anderton.
He was talking to prison officers who held a rally at parliament today to protest against the government’s proposal to re-introduce private prisons in New Zealand.
Former Progressive Party MP and Minister of Corrections Matt Robson put a stop to the private sector’s involvement in the management of prisons in 2000. The National-led government is planning to reverse that policy.
“Prison management should never be a viable private business because we don’t want crime to become a growth industry for anyone,” says Jim Anderton.
“The priority must always be to have prisons that keep the community safe. For those offenders who return to society, they must be returned as safer members of our community.
“Australia is learning that its experiment in private prisons might not have been such a good idea.”
Australia has the highest proportion of inmates in private prisons (around 17%) of any other nation. There is no significant evidence to suggest that the performance of privately run prisons is better than publicly run prisons.
An empirical study of one private prison in Queensland concluded that the private sector has failed to deliver on promises of both internal and external reform.
In Victoria, the Metropolitan Women’s prison has been taken back from private operators because of serious deficiencies in the operation.
“This government is determined to go back to the future, and start the Australian experiment all over again in New Zealand.
“Imprisonment is essentially a state responsibility which should not be delegated to the private sector for cost cutting or profit,” said Jim Anderton.
Jim Anderton at the prison officers’ rally at parliament with Labour MPs Clayton Cosgrove (Waimakariri - left of photo) and Grant Robertson (Wellington Central - right of photo).
Tax matters
08/02/10 12:00 Filed in: Columns
Article for Older & Bolder February 2010
The economist and writer J K Galbraith once sagely remarked that nothing is as conducive to social harmony as the screams of the rich as they pay their taxes. While he may have been exaggerating for effect, there is a kernel of truth in what he said. Whatever we may think about paying our taxes – and I have yet to meet anyone who is enthusiastic about doing so - we all like to feel that our tax system is fair and that all are paying their proper share.
A task force set up by the present National led government has just reported on our tax system and made a number of recommendations and so it is appropriate to ask the question: if those recommendations are followed will we end up with a system which is at least as fair as the one we have now. The answer to that, regrettably, is that we will not, particularly if the taxpayers in question are on modest incomes. That applies to the great majority of those aged over sixty five, over seventy five per cent of whom live on national superannuation as their sole source of income. Those who do rely solely on national superannuation will be only too aware that, thanks to the previous Labour led government, it moves with the average wage and is a percentage of it, but it is by no means a king’s ransom, and that ‘modest’ is an accurate description of it.
The reason why the changes proposed will further widen the gap between most older citizens and New Zealanders generally in the higher income brackets is because it is proposed to reduce the top income tax rate while increasing GST to 15%. There are several reasons why this will have a negative effect on low income New Zealanders.
The first is that income tax is a graduated tax. Those with high incomes pay proportionally more because they can afford to. This is part of what is regarded as fair in the egalitarian society New Zealanders are rightly proud to live in. GST on the other hand is a flat tax. A millionaire pays the same tax on the loaf of bread that they buy as a pensioner on a fixed income.
It is also important to be aware that transaction taxes such as GST are what are known as regressive taxes i.e. because the lower your income the higher the proportion of it you have to devote to the necessities of life you have to buy. The discretionary expenditure of those on lower incomes is reduced when GST goes up and so you can’t adjust the effects of the tax on your budget by buying less of something you don’t need in the way that a wealthy person can.
But most of all it is important to remember that when universal GST was introduced in the nineteen eighties, it was accompanied by a massive reduction in the top tax rate from 66% to 33%. This meant that the wealthy got a major windfall but those on the lowest incomes when this was translated down the progressive tax system got a mere five cents in the dollar relief while having to bear the brunt of the new tax. Those who complain about having to pay too much tax and demand a reduction seem to have forgotten that they have been enjoying the benefit of already having had one for the last two decades.
Ironically one of the justifications of that ‘reform’ was that it was a ‘better way’ of doing things. I didn’t agree with that at the time but there are alternative and better ways of running a tax system which were not canvassed by the current government review group. In my next column I’ll spell out what one of those might be.
The economist and writer J K Galbraith once sagely remarked that nothing is as conducive to social harmony as the screams of the rich as they pay their taxes. While he may have been exaggerating for effect, there is a kernel of truth in what he said. Whatever we may think about paying our taxes – and I have yet to meet anyone who is enthusiastic about doing so - we all like to feel that our tax system is fair and that all are paying their proper share.
A task force set up by the present National led government has just reported on our tax system and made a number of recommendations and so it is appropriate to ask the question: if those recommendations are followed will we end up with a system which is at least as fair as the one we have now. The answer to that, regrettably, is that we will not, particularly if the taxpayers in question are on modest incomes. That applies to the great majority of those aged over sixty five, over seventy five per cent of whom live on national superannuation as their sole source of income. Those who do rely solely on national superannuation will be only too aware that, thanks to the previous Labour led government, it moves with the average wage and is a percentage of it, but it is by no means a king’s ransom, and that ‘modest’ is an accurate description of it.
The reason why the changes proposed will further widen the gap between most older citizens and New Zealanders generally in the higher income brackets is because it is proposed to reduce the top income tax rate while increasing GST to 15%. There are several reasons why this will have a negative effect on low income New Zealanders.
The first is that income tax is a graduated tax. Those with high incomes pay proportionally more because they can afford to. This is part of what is regarded as fair in the egalitarian society New Zealanders are rightly proud to live in. GST on the other hand is a flat tax. A millionaire pays the same tax on the loaf of bread that they buy as a pensioner on a fixed income.
It is also important to be aware that transaction taxes such as GST are what are known as regressive taxes i.e. because the lower your income the higher the proportion of it you have to devote to the necessities of life you have to buy. The discretionary expenditure of those on lower incomes is reduced when GST goes up and so you can’t adjust the effects of the tax on your budget by buying less of something you don’t need in the way that a wealthy person can.
But most of all it is important to remember that when universal GST was introduced in the nineteen eighties, it was accompanied by a massive reduction in the top tax rate from 66% to 33%. This meant that the wealthy got a major windfall but those on the lowest incomes when this was translated down the progressive tax system got a mere five cents in the dollar relief while having to bear the brunt of the new tax. Those who complain about having to pay too much tax and demand a reduction seem to have forgotten that they have been enjoying the benefit of already having had one for the last two decades.
Ironically one of the justifications of that ‘reform’ was that it was a ‘better way’ of doing things. I didn’t agree with that at the time but there are alternative and better ways of running a tax system which were not canvassed by the current government review group. In my next column I’ll spell out what one of those might be.
Good step forward but more urgency needed
04/02/10 20:11 Filed in: News Releases
The National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) scheme is an important step forward for New Zealand’s primary industry export sector but the lack of urgency to get this scheme up and running is worrying, said the opposition spokesperson on agriculture, Jim Anderton today.
“NAIT will ultimately see all livestock in New Zealand tagged as part of a database which traces animals from paddock to plate, a project which I strongly supported as the former Minister of Agriculture. We introduced the initiative in 2008 and would have had it implemented by now – as it needs to be. We had funding in place to develop a world-recognised animal identification and traceability system,” Jim Anderton said.
“NAIT is essential for maintaining international credibility for our food exports. The Labour-Progressive Opposition will be supporting the legislation for traceability and I would certainly like this scheme to have the importance given to it that it requires. The issue has been debated vigorously within the livestock industry for some years.
“David Carter, Minister of Agriculture, has announced that the date for implementation of the scheme will be in 2011 for cattle farmers and a year later for deer farmers. That means it will not be fully up and running in this term of government.
“Those that have opposed NAIT and used delaying tactics have been flying in the face of international reality. Having a scheme such as NAIT is how New Zealand demonstrates that we are one of the world’s leaders in producing high-quality, high-value, safe food.
“The world’s markets are increasingly demanding proof that food systems are of high-quality. Traceability is an important part of that. Consumers want to know where their food comes from, not just from what country, but sometimes even what farm and what particular part of a farm animals come from. NAIT will enable us to do that, on a systematic basis across the whole country. A comprehensive approach is called for.
“I congratulate the meat industry and especially Ian Corney, the NAIT chairman, who has worked with determination to overcome the obstacles to get the scheme accepted by the National government. It is time we saw action on this,” Jim Anderton said.
“NAIT will ultimately see all livestock in New Zealand tagged as part of a database which traces animals from paddock to plate, a project which I strongly supported as the former Minister of Agriculture. We introduced the initiative in 2008 and would have had it implemented by now – as it needs to be. We had funding in place to develop a world-recognised animal identification and traceability system,” Jim Anderton said.
“NAIT is essential for maintaining international credibility for our food exports. The Labour-Progressive Opposition will be supporting the legislation for traceability and I would certainly like this scheme to have the importance given to it that it requires. The issue has been debated vigorously within the livestock industry for some years.
“David Carter, Minister of Agriculture, has announced that the date for implementation of the scheme will be in 2011 for cattle farmers and a year later for deer farmers. That means it will not be fully up and running in this term of government.
“Those that have opposed NAIT and used delaying tactics have been flying in the face of international reality. Having a scheme such as NAIT is how New Zealand demonstrates that we are one of the world’s leaders in producing high-quality, high-value, safe food.
“The world’s markets are increasingly demanding proof that food systems are of high-quality. Traceability is an important part of that. Consumers want to know where their food comes from, not just from what country, but sometimes even what farm and what particular part of a farm animals come from. NAIT will enable us to do that, on a systematic basis across the whole country. A comprehensive approach is called for.
“I congratulate the meat industry and especially Ian Corney, the NAIT chairman, who has worked with determination to overcome the obstacles to get the scheme accepted by the National government. It is time we saw action on this,” Jim Anderton said.
Cracks start to show after National’s bio-security cuts
04/02/10 20:08 Filed in: News Releases
“Last year the government cut at least 54 frontline jobs in biosecurity. This year a small beetle enters New Zealand, and threatens the potato and tomato industries. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to see the link here,” says MP for Wigram and leader of the Progressive Party, Jim Anderton.
At the time, Jim Anderton warned that cuts to staff responsible for preventing diseases and pests from entering New Zealand was false economy and left our borders vulnerable.
Pest like the Hadda Beetle found in Auckland recently can cause serious damage to local farming and horticulture industries.
“The government’s justification for getting rid of these staff last year was that trade and passenger numbers were in decline. It’s true, there has been a decline in the last quarter, but the long term trend over ten years, is definitely up.”
The value of imports per quarter in 1999 for example was just over $6 billion. Now, even with the recent decline, it is about $11 billion. Total monthly arrivals were approximately 240,000 in 1999 and with the recent decline, still remain at about 360,000 per month.
“Trying to save money by playing Russian Roulette on the New Zealand border is worse than false economy; it’s putting our economy at serious risk.”
The Hadda Beetle was found in Auckland’s Dove-Myer Robinson Park and the Auckland Domain.
MAF have reassured farmers and horticulturists, including Kiwifruit, avocado and aubergines growers, that the pests are no longer a threat and have been dealt with.
“The government might have got away with it this time. I hope so for the sake of those farmers. But with 54 less staff at the borders looking out for pests, it’s only a matter of time before we have another incursion.
“Prevention is better than cure. Keep the money and the jobs in biosecurity to stop pests getting in. Then you don’t have to spend more money on trying to eliminate them once they’re here.”
At the time, Jim Anderton warned that cuts to staff responsible for preventing diseases and pests from entering New Zealand was false economy and left our borders vulnerable.
Pest like the Hadda Beetle found in Auckland recently can cause serious damage to local farming and horticulture industries.
“The government’s justification for getting rid of these staff last year was that trade and passenger numbers were in decline. It’s true, there has been a decline in the last quarter, but the long term trend over ten years, is definitely up.”
The value of imports per quarter in 1999 for example was just over $6 billion. Now, even with the recent decline, it is about $11 billion. Total monthly arrivals were approximately 240,000 in 1999 and with the recent decline, still remain at about 360,000 per month.
“Trying to save money by playing Russian Roulette on the New Zealand border is worse than false economy; it’s putting our economy at serious risk.”
The Hadda Beetle was found in Auckland’s Dove-Myer Robinson Park and the Auckland Domain.
MAF have reassured farmers and horticulturists, including Kiwifruit, avocado and aubergines growers, that the pests are no longer a threat and have been dealt with.
“The government might have got away with it this time. I hope so for the sake of those farmers. But with 54 less staff at the borders looking out for pests, it’s only a matter of time before we have another incursion.
“Prevention is better than cure. Keep the money and the jobs in biosecurity to stop pests getting in. Then you don’t have to spend more money on trying to eliminate them once they’re here.”