Mar 2010
ACC’s unlawful stealth policy change
30/03/10 16:30 Filed in: News Releases
People who are injured are having their claims ruled out because of a stealth policy change at ACC that the government won’t acknowledge, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.
In parliament today he challenged the ACC minister over a doubling in the number of cases being taken on formal review after being declined because of a pre-existing condition.
“The law is clear that ACC cannot cover situations caused wholly or substantially by pre-existing conditions or aging. Fair enough. But the law does not permit ACC to decline cover just because of a pre-existing condition.
“Since the change of government, ACC has been declining cover on that ground in what appears to be unprecedented numbers. The government refuses to fess up to a policy change, but record numbers of people are contacting me. And how else to explain a doubling in numbers of claims sent for formal review - suddenly on national taking office.”
From 2004/05 the proportion of claims sent for formal review fluctuated between 0.13 and 0.18 per cent of all claims (about 2,200, to 3,000 a year). Suddenly, when national took office the numbers increased to 0.33 per cent. That would amount to around two thousand affected people.
Many thousands more people are having their claims denied, and can’t afford the cost of formal review and court cases.
Jim Anderton says the government has no satisfactory explanation for the sudden increase.
“There must have been a policy change. According to some of the best surgeons and specialists many of the ‘pre-existing conditions’ have nothing to do with the cause of injury and ACC has no grounds in law to reject people who need cover. This policy change is therefore unlawful,” Jim Anderton said.
The information below was provided by a series of written questions from the Minister for ACC and clearly shows that ACC did not have any information on which they could base policy changes as substantial as they have been.
In parliament today he challenged the ACC minister over a doubling in the number of cases being taken on formal review after being declined because of a pre-existing condition.
“The law is clear that ACC cannot cover situations caused wholly or substantially by pre-existing conditions or aging. Fair enough. But the law does not permit ACC to decline cover just because of a pre-existing condition.
“Since the change of government, ACC has been declining cover on that ground in what appears to be unprecedented numbers. The government refuses to fess up to a policy change, but record numbers of people are contacting me. And how else to explain a doubling in numbers of claims sent for formal review - suddenly on national taking office.”
From 2004/05 the proportion of claims sent for formal review fluctuated between 0.13 and 0.18 per cent of all claims (about 2,200, to 3,000 a year). Suddenly, when national took office the numbers increased to 0.33 per cent. That would amount to around two thousand affected people.
Many thousands more people are having their claims denied, and can’t afford the cost of formal review and court cases.
Jim Anderton says the government has no satisfactory explanation for the sudden increase.
“There must have been a policy change. According to some of the best surgeons and specialists many of the ‘pre-existing conditions’ have nothing to do with the cause of injury and ACC has no grounds in law to reject people who need cover. This policy change is therefore unlawful,” Jim Anderton said.
The information below was provided by a series of written questions from the Minister for ACC and clearly shows that ACC did not have any information on which they could base policy changes as substantial as they have been.
- ACC does not capture data on ‘pre-existing degeneration’, as a decline of cover classification,
- ACC does not capture data on the proportion of claims for treatment of shoulder injuries that have been declined due to a finding of ‘pre-existing degeneration’,
- ACC does not capture data regarding the number of reviews which dispute an ACC decision to decline treatments and/or cover on the grounds of ‘pre-existing degenerative’ condition,
- ACC does not capture data regarding the number of appeals which dispute an ACC decision to decline treatment and/or cover on the grounds of ‘pre-existing degenerative’ condition,
- ACC does not keep data on the average legal costs of defending court decisions relating to the presence of a ‘pre-existing degenerative’ condition,
0 Comments
Government cancels democracy in Canterbury
30/03/10 16:06 Filed in: News Releases
In an unprecedented attack on local democracy, the National government has seized control of local government in Canterbury and completely disregarded the wishes of ratepayers, says Jim Anderton, MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader.
Environment Minister Nick Smith and Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hyde today announced they would sack the Canterbury Regional Council. They also announced there will be no elections for at least three years.
“This is an outrage. 14 elected councillors have just been fired by the Ministers of Local Government and Environment, Rodney Hyde and Nick Smith.
The decision comes after a report by former National Party MP Wyatt Creech. The report recommended sacking the elected councillors and replacing them with appointed commissioners.
“Ratepayers and local farmers have not been consulted. The Councillors in the firing line have only been told this morning that their jobs are gone. This is the kind of response we read about happening in Fiji - not New Zealand.
“If this is how the government proposes to solve the water crisis in Canterbury, then I have grave concerns,” says Jim Anderton.
“ECan has made mistakes in its handling of water issues but it is ironic that ECan was on the brink of coming up with a coherent plan for dealing with the water crisis in Canterbury. Now any solution is on hold while the bureaucrats appointed by Rodney Hyde and Nick Smith move in to take over.
“If the government was serious about water, it would do more than spend a pathetic $700,000 per year through the Community Irrigation Fund on this problem. It would stop playing politics and get serious about water storage. We have plenty of water in and around Canterbury; our problem is how to store it. ECan was about to do something about that,” Jim Anderton said.
Environment Minister Nick Smith and Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hyde today announced they would sack the Canterbury Regional Council. They also announced there will be no elections for at least three years.
“This is an outrage. 14 elected councillors have just been fired by the Ministers of Local Government and Environment, Rodney Hyde and Nick Smith.
The decision comes after a report by former National Party MP Wyatt Creech. The report recommended sacking the elected councillors and replacing them with appointed commissioners.
“Ratepayers and local farmers have not been consulted. The Councillors in the firing line have only been told this morning that their jobs are gone. This is the kind of response we read about happening in Fiji - not New Zealand.
“If this is how the government proposes to solve the water crisis in Canterbury, then I have grave concerns,” says Jim Anderton.
“ECan has made mistakes in its handling of water issues but it is ironic that ECan was on the brink of coming up with a coherent plan for dealing with the water crisis in Canterbury. Now any solution is on hold while the bureaucrats appointed by Rodney Hyde and Nick Smith move in to take over.
“If the government was serious about water, it would do more than spend a pathetic $700,000 per year through the Community Irrigation Fund on this problem. It would stop playing politics and get serious about water storage. We have plenty of water in and around Canterbury; our problem is how to store it. ECan was about to do something about that,” Jim Anderton said.
Progressives contribute to heart surgery unit in Zambia
30/03/10 15:58 Filed in: News Releases
The Progressive Party has raised $1000 to help increase the number of heart operations in Zambia, particularly for young underprivileged Zambians with life-threatening conditions” says leader Jim Anderton.
The Mutima project is run by medical volunteers based in Christchurch and New Zealand.
It supports a cardiac surgical team from New Zealand to perform one hundred life-saving heart operations on young Zambian patients at the University Teaching Hospital in Lusaka.
“The long term goal is to create a dedicated cardiac surgery unit in Zambia so that they have the capacity and the know-how to perform these kinds of operations themselves,” says Jim Anderton.
Jim Anderton and other Progressive party members joined hundreds of Canterbury people, including many cardiac patients, on a six kilometre walk around Hagley Park on Sunday to raise money for the Mutima project.
“I am very proud that surgeons from our region have pioneered this project. I’m struck by the strength of the personal commitment of these local surgeons to serve and help others living thousands of miles away.
“We are a stronger and more caring community because we live amongst people like this.”
Zambia is a poor landlocked country in Southern Africa with a population of about 12 million. 60% live in poverty, earning less than $1 a day. One in five adults is infected by HIV.
The Mutima Trust was formed in 2009. In September a team of specialists will travel to Zambia for three weeks where they will carry out the first of one hundred heart valve replacements on young Zambians.
“These kind of projects leave behind a better functioning hospital system so that in the future Zambian surgeons can perform critical surgery themselves and projects like Mutima won’t be necessary. That is the best kind of aid and development, and I congratulate everyone involved, ” says Jim Anderton
The Mutima project is run by medical volunteers based in Christchurch and New Zealand.
It supports a cardiac surgical team from New Zealand to perform one hundred life-saving heart operations on young Zambian patients at the University Teaching Hospital in Lusaka.
“The long term goal is to create a dedicated cardiac surgery unit in Zambia so that they have the capacity and the know-how to perform these kinds of operations themselves,” says Jim Anderton.
Jim Anderton and other Progressive party members joined hundreds of Canterbury people, including many cardiac patients, on a six kilometre walk around Hagley Park on Sunday to raise money for the Mutima project.
“I am very proud that surgeons from our region have pioneered this project. I’m struck by the strength of the personal commitment of these local surgeons to serve and help others living thousands of miles away.
“We are a stronger and more caring community because we live amongst people like this.”
Zambia is a poor landlocked country in Southern Africa with a population of about 12 million. 60% live in poverty, earning less than $1 a day. One in five adults is infected by HIV.
The Mutima Trust was formed in 2009. In September a team of specialists will travel to Zambia for three weeks where they will carry out the first of one hundred heart valve replacements on young Zambians.
“These kind of projects leave behind a better functioning hospital system so that in the future Zambian surgeons can perform critical surgery themselves and projects like Mutima won’t be necessary. That is the best kind of aid and development, and I congratulate everyone involved, ” says Jim Anderton
Collective responsibility does not require Turia to vote for more Maori unemployment
30/03/10 14:59 Filed in: News Releases
Claims that ministerial collective responsibility stops Tariana Turia from voting against the government’s welfare reforms are a convenient fiction, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.
“Ms Turia is ignoring the last decade of political practice within MMP agreements that allow for minority parties as coalition partners in government to agree to disagree. When I was a minister I voted against the government several times, including against a free trade deal. If it was possible to do that, then it is possible for Ms Turia to vote against welfare changes.
“If, as Ms Turia states, she has not been briefed on the welfare reforms and the Maori Party leadership has not committed to vote for them in the House, Ms Turia is under no obligation at all to vote for them. To say she has to as a minister is just not politically accurate. She is tying herself in knots by speaking out against them, but then claiming she has to vote for them anyway.
“The welfare changes won’t create any jobs, or the skills that long-term job seekers need. If Ms Turia and the Maori Party disagree with the changes, then it is possible for ministers to agree to disagree. That allows parties to support the policies they voted for, instead of abandoning their own people, as Ms Turia appears to be doing by supporting higher Maori unemployment,” Jim Anderton said.
“Ms Turia is ignoring the last decade of political practice within MMP agreements that allow for minority parties as coalition partners in government to agree to disagree. When I was a minister I voted against the government several times, including against a free trade deal. If it was possible to do that, then it is possible for Ms Turia to vote against welfare changes.
“If, as Ms Turia states, she has not been briefed on the welfare reforms and the Maori Party leadership has not committed to vote for them in the House, Ms Turia is under no obligation at all to vote for them. To say she has to as a minister is just not politically accurate. She is tying herself in knots by speaking out against them, but then claiming she has to vote for them anyway.
“The welfare changes won’t create any jobs, or the skills that long-term job seekers need. If Ms Turia and the Maori Party disagree with the changes, then it is possible for ministers to agree to disagree. That allows parties to support the policies they voted for, instead of abandoning their own people, as Ms Turia appears to be doing by supporting higher Maori unemployment,” Jim Anderton said.
Changing ACC policy by stealth
29/03/10 08:01 Filed in: Columns
Column by Jim Anderton, MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader
Published in the Press, 29 March 2010
Imagine your insurance company decides to change the coverage of your home contents insurance without telling you. You’ve paid your premiums for years but when you come to make a claim after a burglary, they turn you down. Something to do with your house now having a new pre-existing vulnerability to burglars. This is news to you.
You would have grounds for taking them to court for breach of contract, and the chances are you’d win.
If ACC was a private insurance company, the New Zealand public could right now take them to court, because under the direction of this National government they are perverting the spirit and the letter of the ACC legislation by turning down injury victims just for having a ‘pre-existing condition.’
New figures just released show that the number of claims sent to formal review by ACC because of ‘pre-existing conditions’ has doubled since National came to power.
Minister for ACC Nick Smith and the CEO of ACC Dr Jan White say they are just ‘sticking more closely to the legislation.’
But according to some of the best surgeons and specialists in the country, many of these ‘pre-existing conditions’ have nothing to do with the cause of the injury. And if the ‘pre-existing condition’ didn’t cause the injury, ACC has no grounds in the legislation to reject people who need help.
Here’s what the legislation says; ACC cannot cover situations caused “wholly or substantially” by pre-existing conditions or aging. Fair enough. It doesn’t say you can reject people just for having a pre-existing condition.
That is a change in policy.
I would like to know who rubber stamped this change, and under what authority they acted.
It’s ironic that President Obama has just introduced health reforms in the United States to stop insurance companies turning people away because of ‘pre-existing conditions.’ Some people were even being rejected because they had hay fever. Meanwhile New Zealand’s National Government is turning ACC into the worst kind of private insurance company.
What makes this change in policy even worse is that the government appears to be acting on a complete absence of data and information.
When I asked the Minister for ACC Nick Smith, in Parliament, how many accident victims with ‘pre-existing conditions’ have successfully overturned their ACC review in court, he said that ‘ACC does not keep this data’. He couldn’t tell me anything.
It’s ironic that when it comes to proving that ACC has gone to hell in a hand basket and has no money, suddenly the Minister does have data.
But that data is highly controversial. ACC was set up to be a pay-as-you-go fund. In other words, you pay for the injuries that happen with the levies raised in the same year. The figures that the government and ACC use to show that ACC is in financial hot water are based on paying money now for accidents that may or may not occur in the future.
That’s just silly. If fifty years ago we had put aside money to pay for all the polio and TB cases we thought we’d have to treat in the future, based on the number of cases in the 1950s, we’d feel pretty stupid now.
We can’t possibly predict what improvements will be developed in the future that may or may not reduce the number of accidents.
The truth is ACC took in $1 billion more than it spent on claims last year, and it’s investment portfolio has increased by over $2 million in the last two years. It’s hardly going down the plug hole.
ACC isn’t free - we all pay levies. We pay to have a system that isn’t one in which an insurance company tries to find ways to avoid helping its policy holders when they need it. We pay to have a no fault compensation system which covers us all, no matter what risks we have to take in our work or on the sports field, and no matter how old we are.
If this National-led government wants to destroy ACC and prepare it for privatisation, then they will overturn the spirit of fairness and decency that led Sir Owen Woodhouse to come up with an accident compensation scheme that is the envy of the world. It helps people, not the insurance companies and lawyers who want to make a quick buck. I don’t think New Zealanders will not give that up without a fight.
I certainly won’t.
Published in the Press, 29 March 2010
Imagine your insurance company decides to change the coverage of your home contents insurance without telling you. You’ve paid your premiums for years but when you come to make a claim after a burglary, they turn you down. Something to do with your house now having a new pre-existing vulnerability to burglars. This is news to you.
You would have grounds for taking them to court for breach of contract, and the chances are you’d win.
If ACC was a private insurance company, the New Zealand public could right now take them to court, because under the direction of this National government they are perverting the spirit and the letter of the ACC legislation by turning down injury victims just for having a ‘pre-existing condition.’
New figures just released show that the number of claims sent to formal review by ACC because of ‘pre-existing conditions’ has doubled since National came to power.
Minister for ACC Nick Smith and the CEO of ACC Dr Jan White say they are just ‘sticking more closely to the legislation.’
But according to some of the best surgeons and specialists in the country, many of these ‘pre-existing conditions’ have nothing to do with the cause of the injury. And if the ‘pre-existing condition’ didn’t cause the injury, ACC has no grounds in the legislation to reject people who need help.
Here’s what the legislation says; ACC cannot cover situations caused “wholly or substantially” by pre-existing conditions or aging. Fair enough. It doesn’t say you can reject people just for having a pre-existing condition.
That is a change in policy.
I would like to know who rubber stamped this change, and under what authority they acted.
It’s ironic that President Obama has just introduced health reforms in the United States to stop insurance companies turning people away because of ‘pre-existing conditions.’ Some people were even being rejected because they had hay fever. Meanwhile New Zealand’s National Government is turning ACC into the worst kind of private insurance company.
What makes this change in policy even worse is that the government appears to be acting on a complete absence of data and information.
When I asked the Minister for ACC Nick Smith, in Parliament, how many accident victims with ‘pre-existing conditions’ have successfully overturned their ACC review in court, he said that ‘ACC does not keep this data’. He couldn’t tell me anything.
It’s ironic that when it comes to proving that ACC has gone to hell in a hand basket and has no money, suddenly the Minister does have data.
But that data is highly controversial. ACC was set up to be a pay-as-you-go fund. In other words, you pay for the injuries that happen with the levies raised in the same year. The figures that the government and ACC use to show that ACC is in financial hot water are based on paying money now for accidents that may or may not occur in the future.
That’s just silly. If fifty years ago we had put aside money to pay for all the polio and TB cases we thought we’d have to treat in the future, based on the number of cases in the 1950s, we’d feel pretty stupid now.
We can’t possibly predict what improvements will be developed in the future that may or may not reduce the number of accidents.
The truth is ACC took in $1 billion more than it spent on claims last year, and it’s investment portfolio has increased by over $2 million in the last two years. It’s hardly going down the plug hole.
ACC isn’t free - we all pay levies. We pay to have a system that isn’t one in which an insurance company tries to find ways to avoid helping its policy holders when they need it. We pay to have a no fault compensation system which covers us all, no matter what risks we have to take in our work or on the sports field, and no matter how old we are.
If this National-led government wants to destroy ACC and prepare it for privatisation, then they will overturn the spirit of fairness and decency that led Sir Owen Woodhouse to come up with an accident compensation scheme that is the envy of the world. It helps people, not the insurance companies and lawyers who want to make a quick buck. I don’t think New Zealanders will not give that up without a fight.
I certainly won’t.
Maori Commercial Aquaculture Bill
25/03/10 17:58 Filed in: Speeches
Maori Commercial Aquaculture Bill
SPEECH NOTES
Under the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004, Maori were promised, by 2014, 20% of all new space from 1 January 2005 and the equivalent of 20% of “pre-commencement space”, that is aquaculture space that was approved between 1992 and 2005. As Minister of Fisheries from 2005 – 2008, I commenced a review of how the Crown could settle its pre-commencement space obligations to Maori, as required under the Settlement Act. The Ministry of fisheries prepared a consultation document which was released to iwi beneficiaries.
The review addressed the progress of the settlement to date and more importantly provided a plan for how the Crown intended to implement and fulfil its pre-commencement space obligations under the settlement.
The review found that it would be virtually impossible to achieve so I asked iwi to consider the benefits of an early settlement.
The Agreement encompassed in this Maori Commercial Aquaculture Bill today signals the government’s commitment, both the previous Labour-Progressive government which commenced this process, and the current government, to completing treaty settlements, in general, and ensuring Aquaculture in New Zealand can keep making progress in particular.
As the then Minister of Fisheries, I sent an invitation to iwi requesting a proposal for an early settlement of the Crowns pre-commencement space obligations. That invitation was issued after listening to iwi who wanted me to consider a regional settlement.
Iwi responded in kind to my invitation and have worked tirelessly with officials from the Ministry of Fisheries to produce the agreement embodied in this Bill.
The agreement and, subsequently this Bill, mirrors both the desires of iwi for the settlement and the direction of the Crown’s plan to settle Maori Aquaculture issues.
The Agreement in Principle provides for a payment of around $97 million for a full and final settlement of the Crowns current pre-commencement space obligations in the Coromandel and the whole of the South Island.
This agreement has only been possible because many iwi have found a way to work constructively together to reach a settlement, both with the Crown, and with each other. All those in industry and government who participated deserve our thanks and congratulations.
The ability of all parties to reach a significant milestone in such a short time is testament to the commitment shown by all involved.
This agreement and the Bill marks an important stage of the Maori Aquaculture Settlement and covers most of New Zealand’s highest value aquaculture development including the Hauraki Gulf, Marlborough and Tasman regions as well as the rest of the South Island.
This Bill reflects the good will shown by the Government and iwi to work together, to settle a treaty claim and bring certainty to all parties.
The iwi representatives, their officials and Te Ohu Kaimoana should be commended for their contribution to this settlement.
The early settlement will assist iwi and the aquaculture sector in their future endeavours to grow the aquaculture industry.
Aquaculture is a growth industry that has great potential for employment and investment opportunities for Maori. I wish them well.
SPEECH NOTES
Under the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004, Maori were promised, by 2014, 20% of all new space from 1 January 2005 and the equivalent of 20% of “pre-commencement space”, that is aquaculture space that was approved between 1992 and 2005. As Minister of Fisheries from 2005 – 2008, I commenced a review of how the Crown could settle its pre-commencement space obligations to Maori, as required under the Settlement Act. The Ministry of fisheries prepared a consultation document which was released to iwi beneficiaries.
The review addressed the progress of the settlement to date and more importantly provided a plan for how the Crown intended to implement and fulfil its pre-commencement space obligations under the settlement.
The review found that it would be virtually impossible to achieve so I asked iwi to consider the benefits of an early settlement.
The Agreement encompassed in this Maori Commercial Aquaculture Bill today signals the government’s commitment, both the previous Labour-Progressive government which commenced this process, and the current government, to completing treaty settlements, in general, and ensuring Aquaculture in New Zealand can keep making progress in particular.
As the then Minister of Fisheries, I sent an invitation to iwi requesting a proposal for an early settlement of the Crowns pre-commencement space obligations. That invitation was issued after listening to iwi who wanted me to consider a regional settlement.
Iwi responded in kind to my invitation and have worked tirelessly with officials from the Ministry of Fisheries to produce the agreement embodied in this Bill.
The agreement and, subsequently this Bill, mirrors both the desires of iwi for the settlement and the direction of the Crown’s plan to settle Maori Aquaculture issues.
The Agreement in Principle provides for a payment of around $97 million for a full and final settlement of the Crowns current pre-commencement space obligations in the Coromandel and the whole of the South Island.
This agreement has only been possible because many iwi have found a way to work constructively together to reach a settlement, both with the Crown, and with each other. All those in industry and government who participated deserve our thanks and congratulations.
The ability of all parties to reach a significant milestone in such a short time is testament to the commitment shown by all involved.
This agreement and the Bill marks an important stage of the Maori Aquaculture Settlement and covers most of New Zealand’s highest value aquaculture development including the Hauraki Gulf, Marlborough and Tasman regions as well as the rest of the South Island.
This Bill reflects the good will shown by the Government and iwi to work together, to settle a treaty claim and bring certainty to all parties.
The iwi representatives, their officials and Te Ohu Kaimoana should be commended for their contribution to this settlement.
The early settlement will assist iwi and the aquaculture sector in their future endeavours to grow the aquaculture industry.
Aquaculture is a growth industry that has great potential for employment and investment opportunities for Maori. I wish them well.
Speech to the Alcohol Causes Violence conference
23/03/10 14:00 Filed in: Speeches
Any day of any week you can open any newspaper, or watch any news bulletin, and the evidence is plain: Alcohol-fuelled violence. Alcohol-fuelled crime. A culture of binge drinking.
Stories like these…
* A brutal and baffling weekend attack which left a young couple critically injured in a west Auckland park has nearby residents fearing for their own safety
* A man walking his dog found the young man semi-conscious in the park at 7am on Sunday morning with a fractured skull and bleeding on the brain
* Six hours into her shift, Heretini had had no break. But she rallied to care for her last patient, a young man with head injuries and lacerations to most of his body. He had fallen out of the window of a moving car while hanging onto the coat hanger handle above the vehicle’s back door.
* The veteran of the Malayan campaign and the Vietnam war was shocked by the viciousness and callousness of the youths. His daughter Jillian was knocked unconscious and her boyfriend was stomped on the head when they arrived home in a taxi as he was being set upon by the mob
* “She was drunk as a skunk”, he said. Mr McKenzie, who survived a serious heart attack two years ago, lost three teeth and received bruising and cuts to his head and body.
That’s just a sample of the sorts of headlines reflecting the every day reality of alcohol in New Zealand, and the results of our drinking culture.
On conservative figures prepared by the Ministry of Health the harm alcohol causes costs between $1.5 and $2.5 billion every year. Three out of five people who are arrested are under the influence of alcohol at the time they commit the offence for which they’re arrested.
If we want to reduce the level of crime in New Zealand, the fastest way we can make a difference, and the biggest difference we can make, would be to make alcohol less available. And conversely, in recent years when alcohol has been made more available, the harm caused by alcohol has risen as well.
Between half and three-quarters of all police work is associated in some way with alcohol abuse. Three quarters of adults arriving at emergency departments on Thursday, Friday or Saturday night have alcohol related injuries.
The Salvation Army says alcohol is present in four out of five domestic violence cases.
Here’s another statistic to make you think; according to a recent medical journal article, there are now 70,000 physical and sexual assaults a year in New Zealand that can be linked to alcohol. That’s 1350 a week.
I support changing the law to make alcohol less available.
I support raising the drinking age and restricting the number of outlets where alcohol is sold.
I support lowering the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit for drivers over 20 years of age from 0.08 to 0.05.
I would raise alcohol prices, reduce alcohol marketing and advertising and increase drink-driving measures.
If we made some of these changes then at least it wouldn’t be so easy for any teenager to walk into a corner shop and buy as much alcohol as they want for them and their friends.
The proliferation of outlets where teenagers can buy booze or alco-pops has to stop.
I want those who grant liquor licences to have greater scope to turn down licences.
If they can see that several dairies selling alcohol, and another off-licence on top of that, all in less than a few kilometres of each other, then licensing authorities need the ability to say - no, that’s only going to cause more social problems.
I’d like to give police more resources to monitor the way liquor outlets comply with the law.
I would like to see the opening hours of all off-licences restricted, for example from 8.00 am to 10.00 pm.
Who needs to buy beer or wine at 3am? Plenty of people are buying alcohol after midnight to continue a binge.
If we made some of these changes then there wouldn’t have been some of the horrific stories we have heard about in the news - such as the alcohol fuelled Auckland men who drove down to their local corner liquor store late at night to rob it and ended up shooting the owner.
It would make a difference, but on its own changing the law would be only one step. It would not be a miracle solution.
What is required is a change in our drinking culture. It is the cultural complexity of drinking that makes regulation of alcohol politically contentious.
We don’t take the steps that need to be taken because political decision-making runs head first into a culture of heavy drinking and of alcohol abuse.
I got attacked in the Dominion for being a wowser by a columnist who raved he simply wanted to just enjoy a glass or two of wine with his meal. That’s what happens when you try to deal with binge drinking and genuine harm.
There are a lot of people who use alcohol responsibly, and they feel that their lifestyle is being criticized and threatened. That’s what makes the issue politically contentious.
Those of us who want to promote responsible alcohol use have to deal with this issue. There is a crucial difference between alcohol and smoking - every cigarette is bad for you. Any use at all is harmful.
But the same is not true of a glass of wine with dinner or a beer at the cricket. Three glasses of wine a day, every day, over a long period, is classed as heavy drinking because over a long period it has harmful health effects.
But that is not the same as binge drinking that is fuelling violence and hospital admissions.
So we need to respond differently to different issues. That means targeted campaigns that raise awareness about the harmful health effects of heavy use on one hand; and targeted rule changes that actively reduce dangerous binge drinking on the other.
What both have in common is that there is a heavy drinking culture in New Zealand. And wanting to change our culture of abuse doesn’t make me a wowser or a party pooper; it makes me someone concerned to reduce crime, injuries and deaths as well as other serious harm to our nation’s health profile.
If we’re going to make an impact, we have to start with binge drinking and dangerous misuse, and we have to address the culture that makes those things acceptable.
Many people who use alcohol don’t abuse it, and therefore changing the culture has to focus where the harm is greatest: If we are going to make an impact on binge drinking and the harm alcohol causes then we have to be prepared to front up to drinking that is risky.
And we have to acknowledge that heavy drinking and binge drinking is widespread.
It’s rare for anyone today to be demonised for wanting to restrict smoking.
But twenty years ago Helen Clark was called every name under the sun for doing so as Minister of Health. A generation ago, people would go to parties and then brag about driving home drunk.
Today, it’s become socially unacceptable. People still do it, but not many people laugh about it any more.
The culture around drink driving has changed, but we have to be clear that it’s a much bigger process than simply changing the law. It takes decades to change social attitudes.
Teenagers are drinking to excess more often and in greater numbers.
And one of the reasons teenagers are getting boozed in harmful ways, and so often, is that the culture of drinking is promoting heavy alcohol use. We are sending out confusing messages to young people.
All-Black’s games and the summer cricket series drip in alcohol promotion. But we act surprised when Black Cap Jesse Ryder or All Black Jimmy Cowan get into trouble when they’re out on the booze.
The community vilifies them, rather than vilifying the alcohol companies who sponsor the games and encourage young New Zealanders to go out and drink to excess.
That’s why I believe one of the most effective changes we could make is to reduce or ban alcohol advertising, particularly at sports games.
The alcohol industry actively markets alcohol to young people. They make their profits by encouraging heavy drinking, and ‘growing’ new drinkers. Currently, $200,000 per day is spent on marketing and advertising alcohol. About half the marketing is spent on sponsorship.
Remember the tobacco industry’s sponsorship of big sporting events like tennis?
Now it is alcohol brands linked alongside major sporting events, for example, the Heineken Tennis Open and any poster of the All Blacks meant for display in a child’s bedroom or school classroom has the Steinlager logo prominently displayed.
The alcohol industry is extremely well resourced and determined to resist any changes that would dent its profits. In my view, all donations to politicians by liquor (or tobacco) companies should be banned, including sponsoring functions.
The liquor industry used to sponsor the annual press gallery party in Parliament House. Journalists themselves found this policy an uncomfortable fit and to their credit now pay for the function themselves or seek their newspaper or media outlet’s support for it.
But you still get bad press by taking on a lot of the alcohol issues like binge drinking. I’ll give you one example.
Six years ago, MPs who are now in government bitterly attacked me because I took steps to increase the excise rate charged on so-called light spirits. These were alcoholic drinks in the range 14 – 23% alcohol by volume.
The evidence showed plainly that the people who were buying them were kids, who bought bottles of cheap liquor on which to get smashed.
It was huge factor in binge drinking. One of principle manufacturers immediately reduced the alcoholic content of his product from 23% to 13.9% - to stay inside the law!
There was, however, a very large decline in the quantities of ‘light alcohol’ drinks sold for sale of around 80 percent. Overall alcohol consumption went down by half a million litres after the excise was increased. I would call that a huge success.
But I am under no illusions about the political cost of the measure. It ran headlong into the booze lobby, and the sneering about nanny state from people who don’t care how many kids kill themselves, until it’s one of their own.
We shouldn’t be under any illusions that changing the law about where to buy alcohol, how you can promote it, who can buy it, and how much it costs, is going to be hard.
Voting on alcohol law in parliament is still seen as a conscience vote. Historically this is because the issue split the major parties, at the time of the prohibition debate and created explosive tensions between prohibitionists and others.
Today, there are no votes in parliament for prohibition.
But everyone professes to be for responsible alcohol consumption. In that case, there should be responsible alcohol laws. Conscience voting in parliament has made alcohol laws incoherent.
Laws get amended in chaos, debates border on the irrational and law-making doesn’t fully take account of health-based interventions, education, and public campaigns to change the way people behave.
The spread of diseases, waiting lists for elective surgery, unemployment or even climate change aren’t treated as conscience votes. Yet alcohol still is. Clearly there needs to be changes in the law surrounding alcohol sale and consumption. But we will only be successful when it is accompanied by a long and targeted marketing campaign.
Alcohol is an addictive drug. It reduces the health status of some of its users. It contributes to premature deaths. We’ve got a long way to go to get people to see alcohol abuse as a public health issue. And therefore we are all affected by the abuse of alcohol.
Alcohol is by far the most damaging drug in the country. The good news is that people who enjoy the many positive features that come with drinking in moderation - enjoying friendships, socialising and having fun - are starting to see that alcohol abuse is a big problem in our communities. Most people understand that we need to change our attitude to heavy drinking.
The fact that we are all here today is a sign that change is already happening.
Stories like these…
* A brutal and baffling weekend attack which left a young couple critically injured in a west Auckland park has nearby residents fearing for their own safety
* A man walking his dog found the young man semi-conscious in the park at 7am on Sunday morning with a fractured skull and bleeding on the brain
* Six hours into her shift, Heretini had had no break. But she rallied to care for her last patient, a young man with head injuries and lacerations to most of his body. He had fallen out of the window of a moving car while hanging onto the coat hanger handle above the vehicle’s back door.
* The veteran of the Malayan campaign and the Vietnam war was shocked by the viciousness and callousness of the youths. His daughter Jillian was knocked unconscious and her boyfriend was stomped on the head when they arrived home in a taxi as he was being set upon by the mob
* “She was drunk as a skunk”, he said. Mr McKenzie, who survived a serious heart attack two years ago, lost three teeth and received bruising and cuts to his head and body.
That’s just a sample of the sorts of headlines reflecting the every day reality of alcohol in New Zealand, and the results of our drinking culture.
On conservative figures prepared by the Ministry of Health the harm alcohol causes costs between $1.5 and $2.5 billion every year. Three out of five people who are arrested are under the influence of alcohol at the time they commit the offence for which they’re arrested.
If we want to reduce the level of crime in New Zealand, the fastest way we can make a difference, and the biggest difference we can make, would be to make alcohol less available. And conversely, in recent years when alcohol has been made more available, the harm caused by alcohol has risen as well.
Between half and three-quarters of all police work is associated in some way with alcohol abuse. Three quarters of adults arriving at emergency departments on Thursday, Friday or Saturday night have alcohol related injuries.
The Salvation Army says alcohol is present in four out of five domestic violence cases.
Here’s another statistic to make you think; according to a recent medical journal article, there are now 70,000 physical and sexual assaults a year in New Zealand that can be linked to alcohol. That’s 1350 a week.
I support changing the law to make alcohol less available.
I support raising the drinking age and restricting the number of outlets where alcohol is sold.
I support lowering the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit for drivers over 20 years of age from 0.08 to 0.05.
I would raise alcohol prices, reduce alcohol marketing and advertising and increase drink-driving measures.
If we made some of these changes then at least it wouldn’t be so easy for any teenager to walk into a corner shop and buy as much alcohol as they want for them and their friends.
The proliferation of outlets where teenagers can buy booze or alco-pops has to stop.
I want those who grant liquor licences to have greater scope to turn down licences.
If they can see that several dairies selling alcohol, and another off-licence on top of that, all in less than a few kilometres of each other, then licensing authorities need the ability to say - no, that’s only going to cause more social problems.
I’d like to give police more resources to monitor the way liquor outlets comply with the law.
I would like to see the opening hours of all off-licences restricted, for example from 8.00 am to 10.00 pm.
Who needs to buy beer or wine at 3am? Plenty of people are buying alcohol after midnight to continue a binge.
If we made some of these changes then there wouldn’t have been some of the horrific stories we have heard about in the news - such as the alcohol fuelled Auckland men who drove down to their local corner liquor store late at night to rob it and ended up shooting the owner.
It would make a difference, but on its own changing the law would be only one step. It would not be a miracle solution.
What is required is a change in our drinking culture. It is the cultural complexity of drinking that makes regulation of alcohol politically contentious.
We don’t take the steps that need to be taken because political decision-making runs head first into a culture of heavy drinking and of alcohol abuse.
I got attacked in the Dominion for being a wowser by a columnist who raved he simply wanted to just enjoy a glass or two of wine with his meal. That’s what happens when you try to deal with binge drinking and genuine harm.
There are a lot of people who use alcohol responsibly, and they feel that their lifestyle is being criticized and threatened. That’s what makes the issue politically contentious.
Those of us who want to promote responsible alcohol use have to deal with this issue. There is a crucial difference between alcohol and smoking - every cigarette is bad for you. Any use at all is harmful.
But the same is not true of a glass of wine with dinner or a beer at the cricket. Three glasses of wine a day, every day, over a long period, is classed as heavy drinking because over a long period it has harmful health effects.
But that is not the same as binge drinking that is fuelling violence and hospital admissions.
So we need to respond differently to different issues. That means targeted campaigns that raise awareness about the harmful health effects of heavy use on one hand; and targeted rule changes that actively reduce dangerous binge drinking on the other.
What both have in common is that there is a heavy drinking culture in New Zealand. And wanting to change our culture of abuse doesn’t make me a wowser or a party pooper; it makes me someone concerned to reduce crime, injuries and deaths as well as other serious harm to our nation’s health profile.
If we’re going to make an impact, we have to start with binge drinking and dangerous misuse, and we have to address the culture that makes those things acceptable.
Many people who use alcohol don’t abuse it, and therefore changing the culture has to focus where the harm is greatest: If we are going to make an impact on binge drinking and the harm alcohol causes then we have to be prepared to front up to drinking that is risky.
And we have to acknowledge that heavy drinking and binge drinking is widespread.
It’s rare for anyone today to be demonised for wanting to restrict smoking.
But twenty years ago Helen Clark was called every name under the sun for doing so as Minister of Health. A generation ago, people would go to parties and then brag about driving home drunk.
Today, it’s become socially unacceptable. People still do it, but not many people laugh about it any more.
The culture around drink driving has changed, but we have to be clear that it’s a much bigger process than simply changing the law. It takes decades to change social attitudes.
Teenagers are drinking to excess more often and in greater numbers.
And one of the reasons teenagers are getting boozed in harmful ways, and so often, is that the culture of drinking is promoting heavy alcohol use. We are sending out confusing messages to young people.
All-Black’s games and the summer cricket series drip in alcohol promotion. But we act surprised when Black Cap Jesse Ryder or All Black Jimmy Cowan get into trouble when they’re out on the booze.
The community vilifies them, rather than vilifying the alcohol companies who sponsor the games and encourage young New Zealanders to go out and drink to excess.
That’s why I believe one of the most effective changes we could make is to reduce or ban alcohol advertising, particularly at sports games.
The alcohol industry actively markets alcohol to young people. They make their profits by encouraging heavy drinking, and ‘growing’ new drinkers. Currently, $200,000 per day is spent on marketing and advertising alcohol. About half the marketing is spent on sponsorship.
Remember the tobacco industry’s sponsorship of big sporting events like tennis?
Now it is alcohol brands linked alongside major sporting events, for example, the Heineken Tennis Open and any poster of the All Blacks meant for display in a child’s bedroom or school classroom has the Steinlager logo prominently displayed.
The alcohol industry is extremely well resourced and determined to resist any changes that would dent its profits. In my view, all donations to politicians by liquor (or tobacco) companies should be banned, including sponsoring functions.
The liquor industry used to sponsor the annual press gallery party in Parliament House. Journalists themselves found this policy an uncomfortable fit and to their credit now pay for the function themselves or seek their newspaper or media outlet’s support for it.
But you still get bad press by taking on a lot of the alcohol issues like binge drinking. I’ll give you one example.
Six years ago, MPs who are now in government bitterly attacked me because I took steps to increase the excise rate charged on so-called light spirits. These were alcoholic drinks in the range 14 – 23% alcohol by volume.
The evidence showed plainly that the people who were buying them were kids, who bought bottles of cheap liquor on which to get smashed.
It was huge factor in binge drinking. One of principle manufacturers immediately reduced the alcoholic content of his product from 23% to 13.9% - to stay inside the law!
There was, however, a very large decline in the quantities of ‘light alcohol’ drinks sold for sale of around 80 percent. Overall alcohol consumption went down by half a million litres after the excise was increased. I would call that a huge success.
But I am under no illusions about the political cost of the measure. It ran headlong into the booze lobby, and the sneering about nanny state from people who don’t care how many kids kill themselves, until it’s one of their own.
We shouldn’t be under any illusions that changing the law about where to buy alcohol, how you can promote it, who can buy it, and how much it costs, is going to be hard.
Voting on alcohol law in parliament is still seen as a conscience vote. Historically this is because the issue split the major parties, at the time of the prohibition debate and created explosive tensions between prohibitionists and others.
Today, there are no votes in parliament for prohibition.
But everyone professes to be for responsible alcohol consumption. In that case, there should be responsible alcohol laws. Conscience voting in parliament has made alcohol laws incoherent.
Laws get amended in chaos, debates border on the irrational and law-making doesn’t fully take account of health-based interventions, education, and public campaigns to change the way people behave.
The spread of diseases, waiting lists for elective surgery, unemployment or even climate change aren’t treated as conscience votes. Yet alcohol still is. Clearly there needs to be changes in the law surrounding alcohol sale and consumption. But we will only be successful when it is accompanied by a long and targeted marketing campaign.
Alcohol is an addictive drug. It reduces the health status of some of its users. It contributes to premature deaths. We’ve got a long way to go to get people to see alcohol abuse as a public health issue. And therefore we are all affected by the abuse of alcohol.
Alcohol is by far the most damaging drug in the country. The good news is that people who enjoy the many positive features that come with drinking in moderation - enjoying friendships, socialising and having fun - are starting to see that alcohol abuse is a big problem in our communities. Most people understand that we need to change our attitude to heavy drinking.
The fact that we are all here today is a sign that change is already happening.
Save 198 Youth Health Centre
18/03/10 10:14 Filed in: News Releases
Save 198 Youth Health Centre
Jim Anderton’s address to rally
The services provided by the 198 Youth Health Centre over the last 10 years have played a critical part in the mental and physical well-being of tens of thousands of our most vulnerable young citizens, local Wigram MP, Jim Anderton said today.
“At a time when the National led government is calling for more services in the areas of mental health, comprehensive health services to primary care/general practitioner level, not to mention nursing, family planning, counselling vaccinations, alcohol and drug, sexual and reproductive health, peer support and smoking cessation services, this is the very worst time to cease adequate funding for 198 which provides exactly these services.
“With increasing unemployment, increasing social and housing needs, together with cuts in ACC, health and education, such a move would simply be a disaster,” Jim Anderton said.
“It is even more inexplicable when the Canterbury DHB is suggesting the need for a “One Stop Shop” for these services which, of course, 198 already provides.
“At a time when the Christchurch City Council is also reducing its funding for voluntary community organisations it is vitally important that concerned citizens in this city vigorously protest against this serious backward step in the provision of these and other crucial community services.
“For the 198 Youth Health Centre services to continue requires only a very modest amount of additional government funding, approximately around $100,000 per year for what is already a low cost, high quality health service.
“Good wishes for your protest. Be assured that I and my Labour Parliamentary colleagues will be joining you in this fight. I’m certain it is one we can win, no matter how long it takes,” Jim Anderton said.
Jim Anderton’s address to rally
The services provided by the 198 Youth Health Centre over the last 10 years have played a critical part in the mental and physical well-being of tens of thousands of our most vulnerable young citizens, local Wigram MP, Jim Anderton said today.
“At a time when the National led government is calling for more services in the areas of mental health, comprehensive health services to primary care/general practitioner level, not to mention nursing, family planning, counselling vaccinations, alcohol and drug, sexual and reproductive health, peer support and smoking cessation services, this is the very worst time to cease adequate funding for 198 which provides exactly these services.
“With increasing unemployment, increasing social and housing needs, together with cuts in ACC, health and education, such a move would simply be a disaster,” Jim Anderton said.
“It is even more inexplicable when the Canterbury DHB is suggesting the need for a “One Stop Shop” for these services which, of course, 198 already provides.
“At a time when the Christchurch City Council is also reducing its funding for voluntary community organisations it is vitally important that concerned citizens in this city vigorously protest against this serious backward step in the provision of these and other crucial community services.
“For the 198 Youth Health Centre services to continue requires only a very modest amount of additional government funding, approximately around $100,000 per year for what is already a low cost, high quality health service.
“Good wishes for your protest. Be assured that I and my Labour Parliamentary colleagues will be joining you in this fight. I’m certain it is one we can win, no matter how long it takes,” Jim Anderton said.
Mental health disaster unfolding in Canterbury DHB
18/03/10 10:08 Filed in: News Releases
Something has gone terribly wrong with the Canterbury DHB’s management of New Zealand’s only high quality Eating Disorder Unit, Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.
He says the resignation of the clinical director, Geoff Buckett, is only the latest disaster.
Dr Buckett is going to Sydney to work for one of the best eating disorder clinics in the world. He has been highly critical of the ‘exclusion from decision making tables’ of the mental health service, and especially of plans to remove adolescents from specialty care.
Jim Anderton has learned that eleven other psychiatrists have also recently resigned, including the chief of psychiatry Dr Phil Brinded.
“Why is the Board and management of the Canterbury DHB overseeing this disaster, with apparent disregard for the serious consequences for the most vulnerable patients and families anyone can imagine?
“Either they know about it and have done nothing, or they don’t know, which is almost worse.
“With the 198 Youth Centre Service going down one day and the Eating Disorder Unit the next, one wonders what else is about to happen to an already fragile mental health system.”
He says the resignation of the clinical director, Geoff Buckett, is only the latest disaster.
Dr Buckett is going to Sydney to work for one of the best eating disorder clinics in the world. He has been highly critical of the ‘exclusion from decision making tables’ of the mental health service, and especially of plans to remove adolescents from specialty care.
Jim Anderton has learned that eleven other psychiatrists have also recently resigned, including the chief of psychiatry Dr Phil Brinded.
“Why is the Board and management of the Canterbury DHB overseeing this disaster, with apparent disregard for the serious consequences for the most vulnerable patients and families anyone can imagine?
“Either they know about it and have done nothing, or they don’t know, which is almost worse.
“With the 198 Youth Centre Service going down one day and the Eating Disorder Unit the next, one wonders what else is about to happen to an already fragile mental health system.”
Financial review Debate - Appropriations Bill - Agriculture
18/03/10 10:03 Filed in: Speeches
Financial review Debate - Appropriations Bill - Agriculture
The question for the government to answer is this: where in this appropriation has it made decisions that will achieve a step change in this country’s economic performance?
The answer is ‘Nowhere’.
There are two hugely contrasting approaches to the New Zealand economy in this House.
Both sides of this House know our economy has to do much better.
Over that side, the government’s entire programme for transforming New Zealand is to increase GST and drop the top tax rate for the most affluent New Zealanders – and yes, build a cycleway! That’s it. That’s their one shot.
And over this side - there is a long list of ideas to foster innovation, create jobs and increase incomes. Research and development, investment in science and skills, partnerships with the sectors, the businesses, the institutions and the people who can bring great New Zealand ideas to market.
National says it supports them - but this appropriation tells a different story. Where is the R&D investment here?
The government cut $700 million from the New Zealand Fast Forward Fund; that is a total cut of $2 billion in New Zealand’s innovation, and it was already to go when they took office. $700m matched dollar for dollar by industry plus interest earned over 10 years = $2 billion.
The government abolished that and replaced it with a primary partnership that has so far completely failed. Eighteen months have been wasted, and not a single project has been funded – not one cent has been invested. Those are years we will never get back.
I thought when the government axed Fast Forward that it was coasting in neutral.
But it is actually going backwards.
It’s overseeing the axing of over forty jobs at AgResearch. Fifty jobs have already been lost in biosecurity. How is that going to help innovation and science in the most productive and innovative part of our economy? It’s going to reduce future growth.
Our future prosperity and jobs depend on science and innovation, and the sector where innovation and science makes the most difference in New Zealand is the primary sector.
It makes no sense to hack off the jobs of forty scientists.
What does the prime minister say about it? He says the government is ‘not inclined to step in to save the jobs.” He’s relaxed about it.
The prime minister calls it “a necessary adjustment to deal with the structure of AgResearch as it currently finds itself” because they’ve got “too much capacity in certain areas". That is nothing less than doublespeak.
In the 1980s we heard quotes about “rising unemployment around a falling trend” or when we close post offices and post banks it became not closure but “transferring their resources”, and we are getting the same kind of doublespeak now.
I’ll tell members why AgResearch has too much capacity. It was meant to be working in partnership on research projects that would have been funded by the New Zealand Fast Forward Fund.
The government chopped the science funding, and now, of course, we’re losing the scientists.
The farmers themselves are not inclined to stump up for research in areas like wool because they know the government has sawn them off. They’re not going out there alone when the rug is being pulled out from under them.
So the prime minister says Ag Research has “too much capacity”. That can only be possible if the government thinks there is too much science already being done in New Zealand.
What has this government got against science anyway? It seems to be on a crusade to smash every limb of science, research and innovation in New Zealand. The first thing this government did - the very first policy it came into the House and implemented - was imposing the largest increase in company tax in New Zealand’s history. It targeted, very carefully, our most innovative companies.
By removing research and development tax credits, $700 million was gone over just 3 years for that purpose. Is it any wonder, then, that we are lagging behind in ways that we never envisaged? What was supposed to happen after we came out of the recession – which of course has been worldwide, was that our economic development wheels would be running really fast.
I look through this appropriation for the pro-science policies that have replaced the R&D tax credits. Where are they? Tragically they don’t exist.
John Key still says we will catch up with Australia. Yeah, right! We will catch up with them all alright – sometime never.
The question for the government to answer is this: where in this appropriation has it made decisions that will achieve a step change in this country’s economic performance?
The answer is ‘Nowhere’.
There are two hugely contrasting approaches to the New Zealand economy in this House.
Both sides of this House know our economy has to do much better.
Over that side, the government’s entire programme for transforming New Zealand is to increase GST and drop the top tax rate for the most affluent New Zealanders – and yes, build a cycleway! That’s it. That’s their one shot.
And over this side - there is a long list of ideas to foster innovation, create jobs and increase incomes. Research and development, investment in science and skills, partnerships with the sectors, the businesses, the institutions and the people who can bring great New Zealand ideas to market.
National says it supports them - but this appropriation tells a different story. Where is the R&D investment here?
The government cut $700 million from the New Zealand Fast Forward Fund; that is a total cut of $2 billion in New Zealand’s innovation, and it was already to go when they took office. $700m matched dollar for dollar by industry plus interest earned over 10 years = $2 billion.
The government abolished that and replaced it with a primary partnership that has so far completely failed. Eighteen months have been wasted, and not a single project has been funded – not one cent has been invested. Those are years we will never get back.
I thought when the government axed Fast Forward that it was coasting in neutral.
But it is actually going backwards.
It’s overseeing the axing of over forty jobs at AgResearch. Fifty jobs have already been lost in biosecurity. How is that going to help innovation and science in the most productive and innovative part of our economy? It’s going to reduce future growth.
Our future prosperity and jobs depend on science and innovation, and the sector where innovation and science makes the most difference in New Zealand is the primary sector.
It makes no sense to hack off the jobs of forty scientists.
What does the prime minister say about it? He says the government is ‘not inclined to step in to save the jobs.” He’s relaxed about it.
The prime minister calls it “a necessary adjustment to deal with the structure of AgResearch as it currently finds itself” because they’ve got “too much capacity in certain areas". That is nothing less than doublespeak.
In the 1980s we heard quotes about “rising unemployment around a falling trend” or when we close post offices and post banks it became not closure but “transferring their resources”, and we are getting the same kind of doublespeak now.
I’ll tell members why AgResearch has too much capacity. It was meant to be working in partnership on research projects that would have been funded by the New Zealand Fast Forward Fund.
The government chopped the science funding, and now, of course, we’re losing the scientists.
The farmers themselves are not inclined to stump up for research in areas like wool because they know the government has sawn them off. They’re not going out there alone when the rug is being pulled out from under them.
So the prime minister says Ag Research has “too much capacity”. That can only be possible if the government thinks there is too much science already being done in New Zealand.
What has this government got against science anyway? It seems to be on a crusade to smash every limb of science, research and innovation in New Zealand. The first thing this government did - the very first policy it came into the House and implemented - was imposing the largest increase in company tax in New Zealand’s history. It targeted, very carefully, our most innovative companies.
By removing research and development tax credits, $700 million was gone over just 3 years for that purpose. Is it any wonder, then, that we are lagging behind in ways that we never envisaged? What was supposed to happen after we came out of the recession – which of course has been worldwide, was that our economic development wheels would be running really fast.
I look through this appropriation for the pro-science policies that have replaced the R&D tax credits. Where are they? Tragically they don’t exist.
John Key still says we will catch up with Australia. Yeah, right! We will catch up with them all alright – sometime never.
Anti-science government axes jobs
16/03/10 13:29 Filed in: News Releases
Future growth in the most productive parts of New Zealand’s economy will be reduced because of the Government’s decision to axe forty jobs at AgResearch, Opposition agriculture spokesperson Jim Anderton says.
“Our future prosperity and jobs depend on science and innovation, and the sector where innovation and science makes the most difference in New Zealand is the primary sector.
“But today the government is hacking off over forty jobs, mainly in meat and wool research.
“I thought when the government axed the $700 million Fast Forward primary sector and innovation fund that it was coasting in neutral. But this is actually going backwards.
“Fast Forward was meant to work in partnership with the private sector and with agencies like AgResearch to speed up New Zealand’s economic development. After it was axed, nothing has happened for eighteen months - that’s why demand for AgResearch’s long term research and development is falling.
“Farmers won’t carry all the costs on their own back. They need a commitment from government as well.
“Having canned the innovation fund, the loss of jobs announced today is the direct result of the government’s anti-science policies,” Jim Anderton said.
“Our future prosperity and jobs depend on science and innovation, and the sector where innovation and science makes the most difference in New Zealand is the primary sector.
“But today the government is hacking off over forty jobs, mainly in meat and wool research.
“I thought when the government axed the $700 million Fast Forward primary sector and innovation fund that it was coasting in neutral. But this is actually going backwards.
“Fast Forward was meant to work in partnership with the private sector and with agencies like AgResearch to speed up New Zealand’s economic development. After it was axed, nothing has happened for eighteen months - that’s why demand for AgResearch’s long term research and development is falling.
“Farmers won’t carry all the costs on their own back. They need a commitment from government as well.
“Having canned the innovation fund, the loss of jobs announced today is the direct result of the government’s anti-science policies,” Jim Anderton said.
FAI Money should never have been given a Crown guarantee
11/03/10 14:00 Filed in: News Releases
A decision by FAI to stop raising money from the public without the government guarantee shows the company should never have been given a Crown guarantee in the first place, Progressive Party leader and Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.
FAI Money has reportedly written to investors saying the company would no longer be raising money from the public to fund its lending. FAI is owned by Hanover and, through a network of companies, by Mark Hotchin and Eric Watson.
“The Crown guarantee was the only thing that kept FAI Money in the public marketplace,” Jim Anderton said.
“But FAI should not have been in the public marketplace after what happened to Hanover, and the behaviour of Mr Hotchin and Mr Watson.”
Jim Anderton says the Crown guarantee was introduced to make sure there wouldn’t be a run on financial institutions in the difficult global economic conditions of late 2008 and 2009.
“The guarantee was never intended to provide backing for businesses that were not going to cut the mustard in more normal times. Treasury’s guidelines for considering a Crown guarantee were ‘the maintenance of public confidence in New Zealand’s financial system; and maintaining the confidence of general public depositors in New Zealand financial institutions.’
“The guarantee for FAI never met that guideline. The Treasury says factors that should be taken into account in giving a guarantee include the size of the entity and related party exposure, the business practice of the entity, the ‘good character’ and business acumen of the entity and “The track record of the entity.”
“Bill English should never have allowed Hotchin and Watson’s business to get a Crown guarantee and the confirmation today that they will not be seeking funds from the pubic proves it.
“The Crown guarantee was a good policy; but that doesn’t mean everyone should have got it”
Jim Anderton has been raising queries about the Crown guarantee for FAI since early 2009.
In 2008, before the global meltdown and the Crown guarantee, Hanover froze over half a billion of investors’ money.
FAI Money has reportedly written to investors saying the company would no longer be raising money from the public to fund its lending. FAI is owned by Hanover and, through a network of companies, by Mark Hotchin and Eric Watson.
“The Crown guarantee was the only thing that kept FAI Money in the public marketplace,” Jim Anderton said.
“But FAI should not have been in the public marketplace after what happened to Hanover, and the behaviour of Mr Hotchin and Mr Watson.”
Jim Anderton says the Crown guarantee was introduced to make sure there wouldn’t be a run on financial institutions in the difficult global economic conditions of late 2008 and 2009.
“The guarantee was never intended to provide backing for businesses that were not going to cut the mustard in more normal times. Treasury’s guidelines for considering a Crown guarantee were ‘the maintenance of public confidence in New Zealand’s financial system; and maintaining the confidence of general public depositors in New Zealand financial institutions.’
“The guarantee for FAI never met that guideline. The Treasury says factors that should be taken into account in giving a guarantee include the size of the entity and related party exposure, the business practice of the entity, the ‘good character’ and business acumen of the entity and “The track record of the entity.”
“Bill English should never have allowed Hotchin and Watson’s business to get a Crown guarantee and the confirmation today that they will not be seeking funds from the pubic proves it.
“The Crown guarantee was a good policy; but that doesn’t mean everyone should have got it”
Jim Anderton has been raising queries about the Crown guarantee for FAI since early 2009.
In 2008, before the global meltdown and the Crown guarantee, Hanover froze over half a billion of investors’ money.
Kiwis didn’t want Telecom privatised, says ex CEO
05/03/10 15:47 Filed in: News Releases
Former CEO, Theresa Gattung has admitted that New Zealanders would have preferred Telecom to remain in public hands.
“After years of resisting attempts to open up the telecommunications market and fighting every move we made in government to increase competition so the public had a choice, Ms Gattung now confesses that there was nothing in a privatised Telecom for the public anyway,” says Jim Anderton MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader.
Ms Gattung said on Radio New Zealand’s Nine-to-Noon show this morning that the basic problem for Telecom was ‘a fundamental disconnect’ that Kiwis would have preferred Telecom to be a State Owned Enterprise (SOE) and ‘never have actually been a private company.’
She said that the SOE model of ‘commercial imperative but public good, sits much more comfortably with the Kiwi psyche.’
“It’s a shame she couldn’t have acknowledged that when she was the CEO of Telecom,” says Jim Anderton.
“The public of New Zealand are still getting the raw end of the deal when it comes to Telecom. Today it’s the failure of the XT network. In 1990 it was Roger Douglas and Richard Prebble selling Telecom for a song to US companies who on-sold it a few years later and walked away with $10 billion tax free.
Telecom was sold in 1990 for $4.25 billion to an American consortium of Ameritech and Bell Atlantic. The two American companies subsequently sold Telecom for $14 billion, making an untaxed capital gain of $10 billion.
“Theresa Gattung calls Telecom ‘a train wreck’. Well the wreck started in 1990. Ms. Gattung didn’t help to fix the wreck. She resisted the Labour Progressive government’s attempts to open the market and regulate Telecom’s monopoly. Despite her resistance we still managed to open the market considerably,” says Jim Anderton.
“Theresa Gattung is trying to re-write history and ignore the fact that Telecom should never have been sold off like the family silver, then a privatised Telecom monopoly allowed to dominate the telecommunications market in New Zealand for over a decade,” says Jim Anderton.
“After years of resisting attempts to open up the telecommunications market and fighting every move we made in government to increase competition so the public had a choice, Ms Gattung now confesses that there was nothing in a privatised Telecom for the public anyway,” says Jim Anderton MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader.
Ms Gattung said on Radio New Zealand’s Nine-to-Noon show this morning that the basic problem for Telecom was ‘a fundamental disconnect’ that Kiwis would have preferred Telecom to be a State Owned Enterprise (SOE) and ‘never have actually been a private company.’
She said that the SOE model of ‘commercial imperative but public good, sits much more comfortably with the Kiwi psyche.’
“It’s a shame she couldn’t have acknowledged that when she was the CEO of Telecom,” says Jim Anderton.
“The public of New Zealand are still getting the raw end of the deal when it comes to Telecom. Today it’s the failure of the XT network. In 1990 it was Roger Douglas and Richard Prebble selling Telecom for a song to US companies who on-sold it a few years later and walked away with $10 billion tax free.
Telecom was sold in 1990 for $4.25 billion to an American consortium of Ameritech and Bell Atlantic. The two American companies subsequently sold Telecom for $14 billion, making an untaxed capital gain of $10 billion.
“Theresa Gattung calls Telecom ‘a train wreck’. Well the wreck started in 1990. Ms. Gattung didn’t help to fix the wreck. She resisted the Labour Progressive government’s attempts to open the market and regulate Telecom’s monopoly. Despite her resistance we still managed to open the market considerably,” says Jim Anderton.
“Theresa Gattung is trying to re-write history and ignore the fact that Telecom should never have been sold off like the family silver, then a privatised Telecom monopoly allowed to dominate the telecommunications market in New Zealand for over a decade,” says Jim Anderton.
Save men’s help-line
04/03/10 15:19 Filed in: News Releases
Suicide rates are on the decline, but more men than women are still dying. This is not the time to get rid of New Zealand’s only phone counselling service set up to help men, says Jim Anderton MP for Wigram and former minister responsible for the government’s suicide prevention strategy.
Health Ministry figures show that 370 of the 483 people who killed themselves in 2007 were men.
“When I was the Associate Health Minister in the last Labour-Progressive government, we put considerable funding into public campaigns about depression and suicide prevention. We knew we had to target men deliberately because it was harder to reach them.
“Campaigns fronted by ex-rugby player John Kirwan have been very successful in de-stigmatising mental illness and raising awareness of depression. The fact that a male role model was chosen to front this campaign was deliberate.”
Lifeline runs the national helpline set up for men, but because of a funding crisis caused by the recession, the ‘Mensline’ will close tomorrow. All calls will be diverter to general Lifeline counsellors who are 75 per cent female.
Mensline has been funded by a number of private and public sponsors.
“I call on the Minister of Health to step in and work out how we can keep this line going. I suspect that the money required to restore the service is considerably less than it costs to fund other help lines like Quitline for smokers or the Gambling Helpline,” says Jim Anderton.
“The New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA) puts a price on a life lost when it decides which black spots to fix. The more lives lost at the black spot, the more likely the road will get fixed. The cost of one life lost is reckoned to be about $2.5 million.
“Surely the government can find what is likely to be a fraction of that, to keep this helpline going and potentially save many lives,” says Jim Anderton.
Health Ministry figures show that 370 of the 483 people who killed themselves in 2007 were men.
“When I was the Associate Health Minister in the last Labour-Progressive government, we put considerable funding into public campaigns about depression and suicide prevention. We knew we had to target men deliberately because it was harder to reach them.
“Campaigns fronted by ex-rugby player John Kirwan have been very successful in de-stigmatising mental illness and raising awareness of depression. The fact that a male role model was chosen to front this campaign was deliberate.”
Lifeline runs the national helpline set up for men, but because of a funding crisis caused by the recession, the ‘Mensline’ will close tomorrow. All calls will be diverter to general Lifeline counsellors who are 75 per cent female.
Mensline has been funded by a number of private and public sponsors.
“I call on the Minister of Health to step in and work out how we can keep this line going. I suspect that the money required to restore the service is considerably less than it costs to fund other help lines like Quitline for smokers or the Gambling Helpline,” says Jim Anderton.
“The New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA) puts a price on a life lost when it decides which black spots to fix. The more lives lost at the black spot, the more likely the road will get fixed. The cost of one life lost is reckoned to be about $2.5 million.
“Surely the government can find what is likely to be a fraction of that, to keep this helpline going and potentially save many lives,” says Jim Anderton.