May 2010
Kiwibank will get downgraded if sold, says credit rating agency
27/05/10 18:13 Filed in: News Releases
Mums and Dads borrowing to buy their own home will pay more mortgage interest if the government doesn't stop talking about selling Kiwibank.
That's what Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says will happen after confirmation from credit ratings agency Standard & Poors that it would downgrade Kiwibank if it is sold.
Standard & Poors said "the current ratings on Kiwibank are equalized with the bank's wholly government-owned parent New Zealand Post Ltd. ...The ratings on the bank get a significant uplift from the bank's stand-alone credit profile due to an unconditional and irrevocable guarantee from the parent. Consequently, any change in the bank's ownership--which would likely be accompanied by a dilution in the parent guarantee--would be a possible trigger for rating review."
Jim Anderton says this means that if Bill English and John Key don't rule out selling Kiwibank, it will be downgraded.
"A downgrade makes Kiwibank's cost of borrowing more expensive, which means Mums and Dads pay more to borrow to buy a home.
"The Government's asset sales program is the worst feature of this year's Budget, and it’s about to cost costing Kiwi families money.
“What is there about the almost universally negative publicity following Bill English’s speculative comments about the sale of Kiwibank that this government does not understand?” says Jim Anderton.
That's what Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says will happen after confirmation from credit ratings agency Standard & Poors that it would downgrade Kiwibank if it is sold.
Standard & Poors said "the current ratings on Kiwibank are equalized with the bank's wholly government-owned parent New Zealand Post Ltd. ...The ratings on the bank get a significant uplift from the bank's stand-alone credit profile due to an unconditional and irrevocable guarantee from the parent. Consequently, any change in the bank's ownership--which would likely be accompanied by a dilution in the parent guarantee--would be a possible trigger for rating review."
Jim Anderton says this means that if Bill English and John Key don't rule out selling Kiwibank, it will be downgraded.
"A downgrade makes Kiwibank's cost of borrowing more expensive, which means Mums and Dads pay more to borrow to buy a home.
"The Government's asset sales program is the worst feature of this year's Budget, and it’s about to cost costing Kiwi families money.
“What is there about the almost universally negative publicity following Bill English’s speculative comments about the sale of Kiwibank that this government does not understand?” says Jim Anderton.
Money still not flowing out of R&D fund
27/05/10 18:00 Filed in: News Releases
“What money? It’s taken this government eighteen months to say it is allocating $3.9 million to research projects. But it hasn’t given anyone a cent yet,” says Jim Anderton MP for Wigram.
The Primary Growth Partnership replaced the Labour-Progressive government’s Fast Forward Fund which would have allocated $2 billion worth of funding for research and development in the primary sector.
$700 million of that was already in the bank, but was taken back into government coffers, and replaced with $30 million, allocated to the new Primary Growth Partnership (PGP)
This week the PGP, which has so far failed to fund any research projects during the first 18 months of this National led government, announced that it had approved funding for three projects, worth about $3.9 million per year for five years.
“Don’t hold your breath. Apparently there is still a pile of paper work and bureaucracy to go through before even a time line for releasing the funding is agreed.
“This is the problem when you tie up innovative business investment decisions in red tape. The Fast Forward Fund was part ‘owned’ by the private sector. They made the decisions about who and how funding would be distributed in partnership with the government. An 18 month delay would have been totally unacceptable when it has resulted in such small scale decisions.
“Now, even when decisions are made to proceed, businesses are being told to sit back and be patient while ‘milestones’ are being delivered and strategy papers written to help decide when to release funds. Here’s a few ‘milestones’ the National government might want to mark:
- $700 million for R&D replaced with $30 million per year,
- $5 million of that is deducted to fund the National Center for Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research (not to help develop primary sector production),
- A further $2 has gone to fund the administrative costs of the PGP, and
- About $3.9 million is finally allocated to R&D projects, but wait - there’s a still a delay while more paper work is done.
“That leaves about $20 million unallocated. Going on the past 18 months, it will take them about ten years to allocate the rest of this miserly funding,” says Jim Anderton.
The Primary Growth Partnership replaced the Labour-Progressive government’s Fast Forward Fund which would have allocated $2 billion worth of funding for research and development in the primary sector.
$700 million of that was already in the bank, but was taken back into government coffers, and replaced with $30 million, allocated to the new Primary Growth Partnership (PGP)
This week the PGP, which has so far failed to fund any research projects during the first 18 months of this National led government, announced that it had approved funding for three projects, worth about $3.9 million per year for five years.
“Don’t hold your breath. Apparently there is still a pile of paper work and bureaucracy to go through before even a time line for releasing the funding is agreed.
“This is the problem when you tie up innovative business investment decisions in red tape. The Fast Forward Fund was part ‘owned’ by the private sector. They made the decisions about who and how funding would be distributed in partnership with the government. An 18 month delay would have been totally unacceptable when it has resulted in such small scale decisions.
“Now, even when decisions are made to proceed, businesses are being told to sit back and be patient while ‘milestones’ are being delivered and strategy papers written to help decide when to release funds. Here’s a few ‘milestones’ the National government might want to mark:
- $700 million for R&D replaced with $30 million per year,
- $5 million of that is deducted to fund the National Center for Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research (not to help develop primary sector production),
- A further $2 has gone to fund the administrative costs of the PGP, and
- About $3.9 million is finally allocated to R&D projects, but wait - there’s a still a delay while more paper work is done.
“That leaves about $20 million unallocated. Going on the past 18 months, it will take them about ten years to allocate the rest of this miserly funding,” says Jim Anderton.
Telecom share decline is a lesson for privatising government
25/05/10 15:50 Filed in: News Releases
This week's considerable reduction in Telecom's worth is only the latest chapter in a privatisation that should be a lesson to the current government's plans to resume asset sales, Progressive leader Jim Anderton says.
"Today's decline in value is the direct result of a monopoly that got privatised being unable to adapt when its monopoly position finally began to unwind.
"Telecom spent about fifteen years dramatically overcharging New Zealanders and blocking innovative competition because it was privatised as a monopoly.
"Billions of dollars were taken out of New Zealand by foreign owners, at a time when a National Government was saying it was owned by Kiwi Mums and Dads.
"Since its monopoly position has been eroded, Telecom has faded because its monopolistic behaviour was hard-baked into the company and it couldn't adapt.
"Most financial commentators supported the sale of Telecom, but it has been a disaster for New Zealand.
"Today the same commentators are still supporting privatisation of successful Kiwi businesses, like Kiwibank.
"I recall consultant Rob Cameron telling the NZ Post Board that Kiwibank would only have ten thousand 'low value' customers after five years. It has between seven and eight hundred thousand and that shows how much credibility he has in calling for privatisation now. Professor Tripe from Massey University claimed Kiwibank would be a dog, and now says it needs $600 million of private capital because it is growing so fast.
"Instead of listening to people who repeatedly get their predictions wrong, the government should look at the record of privatisation: Telecom, Air New Zealand, Kiwi Rail. Disaster, disaster, and even more disaster."
"Today's decline in value is the direct result of a monopoly that got privatised being unable to adapt when its monopoly position finally began to unwind.
"Telecom spent about fifteen years dramatically overcharging New Zealanders and blocking innovative competition because it was privatised as a monopoly.
"Billions of dollars were taken out of New Zealand by foreign owners, at a time when a National Government was saying it was owned by Kiwi Mums and Dads.
"Since its monopoly position has been eroded, Telecom has faded because its monopolistic behaviour was hard-baked into the company and it couldn't adapt.
"Most financial commentators supported the sale of Telecom, but it has been a disaster for New Zealand.
"Today the same commentators are still supporting privatisation of successful Kiwi businesses, like Kiwibank.
"I recall consultant Rob Cameron telling the NZ Post Board that Kiwibank would only have ten thousand 'low value' customers after five years. It has between seven and eight hundred thousand and that shows how much credibility he has in calling for privatisation now. Professor Tripe from Massey University claimed Kiwibank would be a dog, and now says it needs $600 million of private capital because it is growing so fast.
"Instead of listening to people who repeatedly get their predictions wrong, the government should look at the record of privatisation: Telecom, Air New Zealand, Kiwi Rail. Disaster, disaster, and even more disaster."
National's threat to sell Kiwibank
21/05/10 16:18 Filed in: News Releases
National’s threat to sell Kiwibank is economic vandalism, says the MP who started the bank.
Jim Anderton says people worried about Australian banks buying Kiwi bank will immediately be concerned.
“That can only hurt Kiwibank, and therefore hurt the Kiwi Mums and Dads who already own it. It is reckless for a finance minister to deliberately undermine the value of a public asset.
“Kiwibank is a huge success, mainly because it’s ours. Selling the bank would push it straight into overseas hands. The buyers would be the Australian banks.
“Hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders signed up to Kiwibank because it’s ours. Since Kiwibank opened, the other banks have stopped closing branches and increasing fees. They’re feeling the heat. And that’s good for Kiwis.
“National repeatedly promised not to sell Kiwibank,” Jim Anderton said.
“Just this week I received a letter from a retired superannuitant on the Hibiscus Coast who has approached every commercial bank, all Australian owned, for a loan to buy a modest retirement residence for himself. They all refused, and the only bank that would lend him the money, and has now given him peace of mind for his retirement, was Kiwibank.”
Jim Anderton says people worried about Australian banks buying Kiwi bank will immediately be concerned.
“That can only hurt Kiwibank, and therefore hurt the Kiwi Mums and Dads who already own it. It is reckless for a finance minister to deliberately undermine the value of a public asset.
“Kiwibank is a huge success, mainly because it’s ours. Selling the bank would push it straight into overseas hands. The buyers would be the Australian banks.
“Hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders signed up to Kiwibank because it’s ours. Since Kiwibank opened, the other banks have stopped closing branches and increasing fees. They’re feeling the heat. And that’s good for Kiwis.
“National repeatedly promised not to sell Kiwibank,” Jim Anderton said.
“Just this week I received a letter from a retired superannuitant on the Hibiscus Coast who has approached every commercial bank, all Australian owned, for a loan to buy a modest retirement residence for himself. They all refused, and the only bank that would lend him the money, and has now given him peace of mind for his retirement, was Kiwibank.”
Canterbury people told to shut up and pay up
21/05/10 12:15 Filed in: News Releases
“Unelected commissioners running the regional council are telling Canterbury people to ‘shut up’ about democracy when it comes to submissions - they don’t want to hear about it,” says Jim Anderton, MP for Wigram.
Jim Anderton has obtained documents from the Riccarton Residents’ Association which show that the Commissioners are writing to submitters saying they will not hear submissions on “accountability through elected representatives”.
The Commissioners were appointed to replace the democratically elected Councillors and run the Environment Canterbury Regional Council. New elections will not take place for up to three and a half years.
“Silencing the voice of Canterbury people is a bad start for a bunch of unelected Commissioners, like David Caygill a former Christchurch City Councillor, Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister, who should know better,” says Jim Anderton.
“To tell residents of Canterbury who wish to make submissions on achieving the earliest possible return to elected democracy to ECan that ‘your views will be noted but not heard,’ is the height of arrogance.
“Canterbury people were shut out of the decision to sack the ECan Council and cancel elections for several years when the Environment Canterbury Act was rushed through Parliament under extra-ordinary urgency.
“Now the ECan Commissioners are taking away the one chance for Canterbury people to have their say on this issue,” Jim Anderton says.
A large number of people and organisations have already submitted questions on accountability and the need for representatives to be elected as soon as possible. The principle of accountability remains even if the Council has been sacked.
“The Government has said that there will be no elections for up to three and a half years. So why can’t local people and organisations not submit their views on why they think elections should be held in 12 months, or 18 months?”
Jim Anderton has obtained documents from the Riccarton Residents’ Association which show that the Commissioners are writing to submitters saying they will not hear submissions on “accountability through elected representatives”.
The Commissioners were appointed to replace the democratically elected Councillors and run the Environment Canterbury Regional Council. New elections will not take place for up to three and a half years.
“Silencing the voice of Canterbury people is a bad start for a bunch of unelected Commissioners, like David Caygill a former Christchurch City Councillor, Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister, who should know better,” says Jim Anderton.
“To tell residents of Canterbury who wish to make submissions on achieving the earliest possible return to elected democracy to ECan that ‘your views will be noted but not heard,’ is the height of arrogance.
“Canterbury people were shut out of the decision to sack the ECan Council and cancel elections for several years when the Environment Canterbury Act was rushed through Parliament under extra-ordinary urgency.
“Now the ECan Commissioners are taking away the one chance for Canterbury people to have their say on this issue,” Jim Anderton says.
A large number of people and organisations have already submitted questions on accountability and the need for representatives to be elected as soon as possible. The principle of accountability remains even if the Council has been sacked.
“The Government has said that there will be no elections for up to three and a half years. So why can’t local people and organisations not submit their views on why they think elections should be held in 12 months, or 18 months?”
Jim Anderton's Budget 2010 speech
20/05/10 16:49 Filed in: Speeches
What is this government saying to families on low incomes in today’s budget?
Let them eat cake!
It says ‘don’t worry about an increase in GST and rising food prices, because the rich eat more than the poor, so they’ll pay more in GST.’
Is that meant to make low income families feel better?
You might not be able to afford to buy much food - but just think of the GST you’re saving when you don’t eat?
The rich have a choice if they want to spend more money and pay more GST. They can choose whether to upgrade the Mercedes or buy another boat. Those on lower incomes can’t choose whether or not to eat.
What is John Key saying to New Zealand families struggling to pay the bills and make ends meet on low incomes? Stop being envious.
Well they won’t be envious Mr Key, they’ll be angry - like I am.
Are New Zealand families more or less equal after this budget?
They are less equal - and shame on the Prime Minister. After today’s budget the most wealthy New Zealanders will take home thousands of extra dollars per week compared to those on average incomes.
People like Telecom’s CEO who earned $7 million last year will get a tax cut of $6,608 per week. State sector CEO’s who earn more than $600,000 in some cases, will get a tax cut of nearly $500 per week.
If you’re earning $50,000 after you pay more in GST at the supermarket, you’ll only take home $5 per week. And the chances are - that will be wiped out by inflation anyway!
Is a CEO who got a thousand dollar a week pay rise last year, really the highest priority for a seven hundred dollar a week tax cut this year?
New Zealand is now on a par with the UK which has one of the most entrenched income gaps between rich and poor.
Our ancestors came to this country to get away from that inequality! John Key is determined to bring it back with him from his years speculating overseas.
Others might be taken in by the Prime Minister’s ‘rags to riches’ story. Not me.
I remember he helped people make a pot of money speculating against the New Zealand dollar in the 1980s, at a cost to New Zealand of $700 million. Guess what? At the same time, New Zealand’s increasing rate of income inequality became one of the worst in the OECD.
Over the same period, Australia closed the gap between rich and poor. Income inequality widened again under National governments in the 1990s. And it started to get better during the period of a Labour-led government in 1999-2008.
Mr Key mis-led the House yesterday when he said - and I quote - “income gaps between rich and poor...became worse under the previous Labour Government".
No Mr Key! It became better, and is set to become worse again under this National government. (And today I’ll table the facts to prove it.)
Here they are. Under a Labour-Progressive government between 2001 and 2008 everyone became richer - even people like, Mr Key.
But those on low-middle incomes increased their wealth the most, thanks to the Working for Families tax break. We closed the gap - National is widening it.
The Prime Minister also said yesterday that it was a terrible injustice that 10% of the wealthiest New Zealanders pay 44% of the tax. What does the Prime Minister think they do in Australia? 10% pay 46% of all tax!
Turns out that’s what most countries do. Those who earn more, pay more tax, because they earn a higher share of the income. It’s a fair tax system.
But John Key is no Robin Hood. More like the Sheriff of Nottingham, looking after his own.
Will the average New Zealander be better off after the Sheriff’s budget? No.
Because they’re not getting the lion’s share of the tax cut. Guess who got the lion’s share from the last round of tax cuts? The same top earners. Has the penny dropped yet? If people are not on a high income, this government is not going to help.
Some might have voted for them in 2008 - but they can make them a one-term government in 2011. The first since 1975 - and good riddance. If they’re on an average income but had aspirations to do better - forget it.
This is a budget that puts reinforced glass into the glass ceiling.
This government is showing its true colours today. It doesn’t want all our people to prosper. It wants them to know their place.
Will there be more children lifted out of poverty after today’s budget? No.
A recent UNICEF survey of the well-being of children puts New Zealand almost last - 24th out of 25 countries. It measured immunisation levels, infant death and early death from injury and illness.
Greece’s economy is collapsing and the streets are on fire as people protest - but they’re way ahead of New Zealand when it comes to looking after children!
Here’s what a respected Professor of Epidemiology in New Zealand said recently “In New Zealand, social injustice is killing and maiming our children on a grand scale” We top the scales for OECD rates of whooping cough, rheumatic fever, pneumonia and other diseases in children.
We spend less than the OECD average on child health, and the only thing that will change as a result of this budget is that this appalling situation will get worse.
28% of our children still live in poverty.
That rate started to decline under the last Labour Progressive government for the first time in decades. Working for Families lifted about 100,000 children out of poverty.
Senior people in the medical profession know what the problem is - and they know what the answer is. The politics of inequality.
Why do we have such high rates of child illness and death? Poverty. And how do you get rid of poverty? You increase people’s incomes, give them decent wages and jobs.
Will there be more jobs after today? No.
There is nothing in this budget to create new jobs. Our unemployment rates have ballooned since this government came to power - to over 7%.
The National government can’t blame the recession. Because at the same time, Australia’s unemployment has dropped to just over 5%.
How many jobs has John Key’s cycle way created so far? None!
What about the nine day fortnight? It was meant to save thousands of jobs - but didn’t.
New Zealand doesn’t have a tax problem - it has a wage problem.
National has no plan to increase wages. If John Key thinks that cutting the top tax rate will stop young doctors or entrepreneurs going overseas, he’s dreaming. Australia’s top tax rate is 45 cents in the dollar - much higher than New Zealand’s.
New Zealand’s tax system compared to the rest of the world has been one of the most progressive for average income earners, according to a recent OECD report.
John Key should ask himself why he left the country to go into the world of international speculation. Did he leave to avoid our high taxes? I doubt it.
I’m sure he left because he could earn more overseas. Tax cuts for the wealthy won’t increase the wage packet of ordinary New Zealanders.
Will the economy grow as a result of the Sheriff’s budget today? No.
There is nothing in this budget to increase our exports.
Nothing to encourage us to save.
Nothing to grow the economy.
No new ideas.
The wealthy few who get a hefty tax cut today will most likely invest the extra cash overseas.
Where’s the money for science and research & development?
John Key has scrapped the $2 billion worth of spending on R&D that we had set aside under a Labour-Progressive government. And what’s he replaced it with? A science advisor and a few ‘vouchers’.
The whole package, including the new vouchers in the budget amount to less than 26% of what business and science would have got under a Labour-Progressive government.
Does this anti-science government think that new technologies will just appear out of thin air?
In the meantime, will most New Zealanders pay more? Yes.
The larger the tax cut National gives to the top income earners, the smaller the amount left over for people on the average wage. Someone has to pay.
More GST at the shops.
Increased property tax will increase rents.
More at the petrol pump.
More for power bills
More for ACC.
More for student loans.
More for early childhood education.
This is not a budget for hardworking New
Zealanders and Kiwi families.
Some voted for this government because they thought the Prime Minister’s ‘rags to riches’ story might rub off on our country.
But it turns out Robin Hood is really the Sheriff of Nottingham with a false smile - and the message is clear.
‘Let them eat cake!’
This budget is a disgrace and this parliament should be both ashamed and angry to receive it.
Let them eat cake!
It says ‘don’t worry about an increase in GST and rising food prices, because the rich eat more than the poor, so they’ll pay more in GST.’
Is that meant to make low income families feel better?
You might not be able to afford to buy much food - but just think of the GST you’re saving when you don’t eat?
The rich have a choice if they want to spend more money and pay more GST. They can choose whether to upgrade the Mercedes or buy another boat. Those on lower incomes can’t choose whether or not to eat.
What is John Key saying to New Zealand families struggling to pay the bills and make ends meet on low incomes? Stop being envious.
Well they won’t be envious Mr Key, they’ll be angry - like I am.
Are New Zealand families more or less equal after this budget?
They are less equal - and shame on the Prime Minister. After today’s budget the most wealthy New Zealanders will take home thousands of extra dollars per week compared to those on average incomes.
People like Telecom’s CEO who earned $7 million last year will get a tax cut of $6,608 per week. State sector CEO’s who earn more than $600,000 in some cases, will get a tax cut of nearly $500 per week.
If you’re earning $50,000 after you pay more in GST at the supermarket, you’ll only take home $5 per week. And the chances are - that will be wiped out by inflation anyway!
Is a CEO who got a thousand dollar a week pay rise last year, really the highest priority for a seven hundred dollar a week tax cut this year?
New Zealand is now on a par with the UK which has one of the most entrenched income gaps between rich and poor.
Our ancestors came to this country to get away from that inequality! John Key is determined to bring it back with him from his years speculating overseas.
Others might be taken in by the Prime Minister’s ‘rags to riches’ story. Not me.
I remember he helped people make a pot of money speculating against the New Zealand dollar in the 1980s, at a cost to New Zealand of $700 million. Guess what? At the same time, New Zealand’s increasing rate of income inequality became one of the worst in the OECD.
Over the same period, Australia closed the gap between rich and poor. Income inequality widened again under National governments in the 1990s. And it started to get better during the period of a Labour-led government in 1999-2008.
Mr Key mis-led the House yesterday when he said - and I quote - “income gaps between rich and poor...became worse under the previous Labour Government".
No Mr Key! It became better, and is set to become worse again under this National government. (And today I’ll table the facts to prove it.)
Here they are. Under a Labour-Progressive government between 2001 and 2008 everyone became richer - even people like, Mr Key.
But those on low-middle incomes increased their wealth the most, thanks to the Working for Families tax break. We closed the gap - National is widening it.
The Prime Minister also said yesterday that it was a terrible injustice that 10% of the wealthiest New Zealanders pay 44% of the tax. What does the Prime Minister think they do in Australia? 10% pay 46% of all tax!
Turns out that’s what most countries do. Those who earn more, pay more tax, because they earn a higher share of the income. It’s a fair tax system.
But John Key is no Robin Hood. More like the Sheriff of Nottingham, looking after his own.
Will the average New Zealander be better off after the Sheriff’s budget? No.
Because they’re not getting the lion’s share of the tax cut. Guess who got the lion’s share from the last round of tax cuts? The same top earners. Has the penny dropped yet? If people are not on a high income, this government is not going to help.
Some might have voted for them in 2008 - but they can make them a one-term government in 2011. The first since 1975 - and good riddance. If they’re on an average income but had aspirations to do better - forget it.
This is a budget that puts reinforced glass into the glass ceiling.
This government is showing its true colours today. It doesn’t want all our people to prosper. It wants them to know their place.
Will there be more children lifted out of poverty after today’s budget? No.
A recent UNICEF survey of the well-being of children puts New Zealand almost last - 24th out of 25 countries. It measured immunisation levels, infant death and early death from injury and illness.
Greece’s economy is collapsing and the streets are on fire as people protest - but they’re way ahead of New Zealand when it comes to looking after children!
Here’s what a respected Professor of Epidemiology in New Zealand said recently “In New Zealand, social injustice is killing and maiming our children on a grand scale” We top the scales for OECD rates of whooping cough, rheumatic fever, pneumonia and other diseases in children.
We spend less than the OECD average on child health, and the only thing that will change as a result of this budget is that this appalling situation will get worse.
28% of our children still live in poverty.
That rate started to decline under the last Labour Progressive government for the first time in decades. Working for Families lifted about 100,000 children out of poverty.
Senior people in the medical profession know what the problem is - and they know what the answer is. The politics of inequality.
Why do we have such high rates of child illness and death? Poverty. And how do you get rid of poverty? You increase people’s incomes, give them decent wages and jobs.
Will there be more jobs after today? No.
There is nothing in this budget to create new jobs. Our unemployment rates have ballooned since this government came to power - to over 7%.
The National government can’t blame the recession. Because at the same time, Australia’s unemployment has dropped to just over 5%.
How many jobs has John Key’s cycle way created so far? None!
What about the nine day fortnight? It was meant to save thousands of jobs - but didn’t.
New Zealand doesn’t have a tax problem - it has a wage problem.
National has no plan to increase wages. If John Key thinks that cutting the top tax rate will stop young doctors or entrepreneurs going overseas, he’s dreaming. Australia’s top tax rate is 45 cents in the dollar - much higher than New Zealand’s.
New Zealand’s tax system compared to the rest of the world has been one of the most progressive for average income earners, according to a recent OECD report.
John Key should ask himself why he left the country to go into the world of international speculation. Did he leave to avoid our high taxes? I doubt it.
I’m sure he left because he could earn more overseas. Tax cuts for the wealthy won’t increase the wage packet of ordinary New Zealanders.
Will the economy grow as a result of the Sheriff’s budget today? No.
There is nothing in this budget to increase our exports.
Nothing to encourage us to save.
Nothing to grow the economy.
No new ideas.
The wealthy few who get a hefty tax cut today will most likely invest the extra cash overseas.
Where’s the money for science and research & development?
John Key has scrapped the $2 billion worth of spending on R&D that we had set aside under a Labour-Progressive government. And what’s he replaced it with? A science advisor and a few ‘vouchers’.
The whole package, including the new vouchers in the budget amount to less than 26% of what business and science would have got under a Labour-Progressive government.
Does this anti-science government think that new technologies will just appear out of thin air?
In the meantime, will most New Zealanders pay more? Yes.
The larger the tax cut National gives to the top income earners, the smaller the amount left over for people on the average wage. Someone has to pay.
More GST at the shops.
Increased property tax will increase rents.
More at the petrol pump.
More for power bills
More for ACC.
More for student loans.
More for early childhood education.
This is not a budget for hardworking New
Zealanders and Kiwi families.
Some voted for this government because they thought the Prime Minister’s ‘rags to riches’ story might rub off on our country.
But it turns out Robin Hood is really the Sheriff of Nottingham with a false smile - and the message is clear.
‘Let them eat cake!’
This budget is a disgrace and this parliament should be both ashamed and angry to receive it.
Let them eat cake!
20/05/10 16:44 Filed in: News Releases
The gap between rich and poor is set to widen after today’s budget, says Jim Anderton MP for Wigram.
“This National led government has shown its true colours today. The CEO of Telecom who reportedly earned $7 million last year, will now get an extra $6608 per week. Those on $600,000 will take home about an extra $500.
Meanwhile working Kiwis on $50,000 will spend about an extra $23 on increased GST at the supermarket, so their tax cut will be a miserly $5.50. More likely it will be wiped out by inflation.
Those on low incomes will pay more as a result of an increase in GST from 12.5% to 15%.
“What is this government saying to families on lower incomes in today’s budget? ‘Let them eat cake!’ It says ‘don’t worry about an increase in GST and rising food prices, because the rich consume more than the poor, so they’ll pay more in GST. Is that meant to make low income families feel better? ‘You might not be able to afford to buy much food - but just think of the GST you’re saving when you don’t eat?’
“There is nothing in this budget to help grow the economy or create jobs. John Key has got rid of $2 billion worth of Research and Development set up by the last Labour-Progressive government and replaced it with his own personal science advisor and just over a quarter of what scientists would have got under our government.
“New Zealand’s rates of increasing income inequality were amongst the worst in the world according to OECD figures. We only started to close that gap under a Labour-Progressive government. Now the gap will widen again.”
A recent UNICEF survey of the well-being of children puts New Zealand almost last - 24th out of 25 countries. It measured immunisation levels, infant death and early death from
injury and illness.
“Here’s what a respected Professor of Epidemiology in New Zealand said recently ‘In New Zealand, social injustice is killing and maiming our children on a grand scale.’ Nothing in this budget is going to change that.
“If you voted for this government because you thought John Key’s ‘rag to riches’ story might rub off on the country, now you know he is no Robin Hood - more a Sheriff of Nottingham”, Jim Anderton said today.
“This National led government has shown its true colours today. The CEO of Telecom who reportedly earned $7 million last year, will now get an extra $6608 per week. Those on $600,000 will take home about an extra $500.
Meanwhile working Kiwis on $50,000 will spend about an extra $23 on increased GST at the supermarket, so their tax cut will be a miserly $5.50. More likely it will be wiped out by inflation.
Those on low incomes will pay more as a result of an increase in GST from 12.5% to 15%.
“What is this government saying to families on lower incomes in today’s budget? ‘Let them eat cake!’ It says ‘don’t worry about an increase in GST and rising food prices, because the rich consume more than the poor, so they’ll pay more in GST. Is that meant to make low income families feel better? ‘You might not be able to afford to buy much food - but just think of the GST you’re saving when you don’t eat?’
“There is nothing in this budget to help grow the economy or create jobs. John Key has got rid of $2 billion worth of Research and Development set up by the last Labour-Progressive government and replaced it with his own personal science advisor and just over a quarter of what scientists would have got under our government.
“New Zealand’s rates of increasing income inequality were amongst the worst in the world according to OECD figures. We only started to close that gap under a Labour-Progressive government. Now the gap will widen again.”
A recent UNICEF survey of the well-being of children puts New Zealand almost last - 24th out of 25 countries. It measured immunisation levels, infant death and early death from
injury and illness.
“Here’s what a respected Professor of Epidemiology in New Zealand said recently ‘In New Zealand, social injustice is killing and maiming our children on a grand scale.’ Nothing in this budget is going to change that.
“If you voted for this government because you thought John Key’s ‘rag to riches’ story might rub off on the country, now you know he is no Robin Hood - more a Sheriff of Nottingham”, Jim Anderton said today.
Odyssey House 25th Anniversary
07/05/10 12:29 Filed in: Speeches
Odyssey House Trust has been successfully providing treatment in Christchurch for nearly 25 years. It opened in 1985.
They already had an Odyssey House in Auckland, opened by Fraser McDonald in 1980 who was an enlightened pioneer in mental health treatment and it is important to remember people like him today.
The tag line for Odyssey House in Auckland is “Never Give Up Hope” and I know that people here in Christchurch have never given up.
It can be a challenge, campaigning against drug and alcohol abuse.
People assume - wrongly - that these problems are nothing to do with them. But there’s hardly a family in New Zealand that hasn’t been touched by alcohol or drug abuse.
There are now 70,000 physical and sexual assaults a year in New Zealand that can be attributed to alcohol abuse. That’s 1350 a week.
But if, like me and Professor Doug Sellman, and you openly campaign to raise the drinking age to 20 for example, you’re accused of stopping people having a good time and being a wowser.
I’ve been working with Doug Sellman to campaign for the +5 solution to alcohol abuse, and I know that Odyssey House is supportive.
These proposals would: Raise alcohol prices, raise the purchase age, reduce accessibility of alcohol, reduce marketing and advertising of alcohol, and increase drink-driving measures. And the ‘plus’ is increased treatment like the programmes provided at Odyssey.
As many of you know, I’ve also campaigned to curb drug abuse. When I was minister I banned the party drug BZP.
So now there’s an ad running on the radio which promotes the latest legal party pill, and it starts off by saying: “Don’t let Uncle Jim ruin the Party!”
Apparently, last week, I’ve discovered I have a new nick-name in one of the university magazines: ‘Jim BANderton.’ If you put your head above the parapet on these issues, expect to get a whack!
I have no doubt that we have a drinking problem in New Zealand - and we also have a drug problem – but, of course, alcohol is also a drug – the most serious drug affecting the lives of New Zealanders.
The biggest challenge we face is attitude. We need a culture change - where binge drinking isn’t tolerated and regular drug use isn’t seen as a ‘normal’ way to have a good time.
My 6 year old godson plays ripper rugby, and it’s obscene to see 6 year olds running around with beer ads all over the flags and the goal posts!
The work that Odyssey House has done over 25 years has been remarkable, and I’ve been proud to be a part of it when as Minister I managed to obtain the funds for a new youth residential facility.
At the time, there were people who thought it was a mad idea, because - they said - you only get so many chances at bidding for money when you’re a small party in government like the Progressive Party.
We had to be very strategic when we went to see our coalition partners asking for money out of the government’s budget.
A new residential facility at Odyssey House wasn’t a big national project like Kiwibank. But it was thinking like that, that had left Christchurch without any residential centre, and four in five youth offenders with a drug or alcohol problem.
We had to be strong enough to care about these issues locally, and you have shown over the last few years, that that money was well spent. It hasn’t been easy. Its taken vision, hard work and commitment.
You have shown that this community cares enough to give people a second chance. I’ve heard stories from graduates of Odyssey who when they arrive, had given up on life. What makes the difference are the programmes and the staff.
Here’s what one young woman said about the staff: “I have never encountered such unconditional acceptance. It was the first time in years that I had been treated as an equal and as an adult. At first I was suspicious of their motives because I thought nobody can be this nice or kind or knowledgeable and want to work with people like us – mentally ill and grossly addicted to alcohol or drugs. We’re messy and smelly and grumpy and violent.”
Gradually she accepted that the staff were genuine and she decided to “give it a shot”.
This young woman is now studying for a Bachelor of Alcohol & Drug Studies at WelTec. Her dream is to one day work for Odyssey House.
What impresses me the most, however, is that Odyssey House in Christchurch is evidence that our community cares. It was a core group of 16 residents who got together and set it up in the first place in 1985.
Since then, you have been successfully providing treatment in Christchurch. Today, the community is still at the heart of the Odyssey House model. People learn how to use the resources in the community to help them recover.
Another example I read about was a 47 year old who said Odyssey House had “ruined” his career - his criminal career!
He started in crime and drugs when he was fourteen. He had been, over the years, into everything. Heroin in the eighties, P for eight years. He spent ten years of his life in jail. And one day he finally showed up in front of a judge who gave him a choice between going inside or going to Odyssey House. He found out that it was no soft option.
Today, that person is studying at a tertiary institution and helping others to move away from drugs. Now, you are getting people like him age 14 - not 47 - before they make big mistakes; before they spend ten years in jail.
Here’s another quote from an Odyssey House graduate: “I can’t say enough about Odyssey. It gave me a life. I feel whole, capable, loveable. I never thought that would happen.”
That’s what you are doing every day at Odyssey House Christchurch; you are giving people back their lives. I congratulate everyone involved today.
It took tenacity and strength by a caring community to open Odyssey House 25 years ago, and it will take the same strength to keep it going for another 25 years.
They already had an Odyssey House in Auckland, opened by Fraser McDonald in 1980 who was an enlightened pioneer in mental health treatment and it is important to remember people like him today.
The tag line for Odyssey House in Auckland is “Never Give Up Hope” and I know that people here in Christchurch have never given up.
It can be a challenge, campaigning against drug and alcohol abuse.
People assume - wrongly - that these problems are nothing to do with them. But there’s hardly a family in New Zealand that hasn’t been touched by alcohol or drug abuse.
There are now 70,000 physical and sexual assaults a year in New Zealand that can be attributed to alcohol abuse. That’s 1350 a week.
But if, like me and Professor Doug Sellman, and you openly campaign to raise the drinking age to 20 for example, you’re accused of stopping people having a good time and being a wowser.
I’ve been working with Doug Sellman to campaign for the +5 solution to alcohol abuse, and I know that Odyssey House is supportive.
These proposals would: Raise alcohol prices, raise the purchase age, reduce accessibility of alcohol, reduce marketing and advertising of alcohol, and increase drink-driving measures. And the ‘plus’ is increased treatment like the programmes provided at Odyssey.
As many of you know, I’ve also campaigned to curb drug abuse. When I was minister I banned the party drug BZP.
So now there’s an ad running on the radio which promotes the latest legal party pill, and it starts off by saying: “Don’t let Uncle Jim ruin the Party!”
Apparently, last week, I’ve discovered I have a new nick-name in one of the university magazines: ‘Jim BANderton.’ If you put your head above the parapet on these issues, expect to get a whack!
I have no doubt that we have a drinking problem in New Zealand - and we also have a drug problem – but, of course, alcohol is also a drug – the most serious drug affecting the lives of New Zealanders.
The biggest challenge we face is attitude. We need a culture change - where binge drinking isn’t tolerated and regular drug use isn’t seen as a ‘normal’ way to have a good time.
My 6 year old godson plays ripper rugby, and it’s obscene to see 6 year olds running around with beer ads all over the flags and the goal posts!
The work that Odyssey House has done over 25 years has been remarkable, and I’ve been proud to be a part of it when as Minister I managed to obtain the funds for a new youth residential facility.
At the time, there were people who thought it was a mad idea, because - they said - you only get so many chances at bidding for money when you’re a small party in government like the Progressive Party.
We had to be very strategic when we went to see our coalition partners asking for money out of the government’s budget.
A new residential facility at Odyssey House wasn’t a big national project like Kiwibank. But it was thinking like that, that had left Christchurch without any residential centre, and four in five youth offenders with a drug or alcohol problem.
We had to be strong enough to care about these issues locally, and you have shown over the last few years, that that money was well spent. It hasn’t been easy. Its taken vision, hard work and commitment.
You have shown that this community cares enough to give people a second chance. I’ve heard stories from graduates of Odyssey who when they arrive, had given up on life. What makes the difference are the programmes and the staff.
Here’s what one young woman said about the staff: “I have never encountered such unconditional acceptance. It was the first time in years that I had been treated as an equal and as an adult. At first I was suspicious of their motives because I thought nobody can be this nice or kind or knowledgeable and want to work with people like us – mentally ill and grossly addicted to alcohol or drugs. We’re messy and smelly and grumpy and violent.”
Gradually she accepted that the staff were genuine and she decided to “give it a shot”.
This young woman is now studying for a Bachelor of Alcohol & Drug Studies at WelTec. Her dream is to one day work for Odyssey House.
What impresses me the most, however, is that Odyssey House in Christchurch is evidence that our community cares. It was a core group of 16 residents who got together and set it up in the first place in 1985.
Since then, you have been successfully providing treatment in Christchurch. Today, the community is still at the heart of the Odyssey House model. People learn how to use the resources in the community to help them recover.
Another example I read about was a 47 year old who said Odyssey House had “ruined” his career - his criminal career!
He started in crime and drugs when he was fourteen. He had been, over the years, into everything. Heroin in the eighties, P for eight years. He spent ten years of his life in jail. And one day he finally showed up in front of a judge who gave him a choice between going inside or going to Odyssey House. He found out that it was no soft option.
Today, that person is studying at a tertiary institution and helping others to move away from drugs. Now, you are getting people like him age 14 - not 47 - before they make big mistakes; before they spend ten years in jail.
Here’s another quote from an Odyssey House graduate: “I can’t say enough about Odyssey. It gave me a life. I feel whole, capable, loveable. I never thought that would happen.”
That’s what you are doing every day at Odyssey House Christchurch; you are giving people back their lives. I congratulate everyone involved today.
It took tenacity and strength by a caring community to open Odyssey House 25 years ago, and it will take the same strength to keep it going for another 25 years.
How does cutting top tax rate cut make super more affordable?
04/05/10 16:32 Filed in: News Releases
Planned cuts in the top rate of tax weaken the ability of the government to continue to provide universal superannuation in the way all parties agreed to in the New Zealand Superannuation Accord, Progressive Party MP Jim Anderton says.
He has released the Progressive Party’s submission to the 2010 New Zealand Superannuation Retirement Income Review today.
Jim Anderton was one of the signatories of the 1993 Superannuation Accord that aimed to provide long-term stability to superannuation.
The main principle agreed to by all parties was that ‘the net amount provided from public funds for a retired person should reduce as that person’s total income increases’.
That principle could be met by a surcharge on superannuation or by a progressive income tax scale.
“If the National Government makes income tax less progressive in this budget by reducing the top personal income tax rate, then how is it going to meet the Accord principle that ‘the net amount provided from public funds for a retired person should reduce as that person’s total income increases’?
“Either National will ultimately reduce entitlement to superannuation, or it no longer believes that the amount provided from public funds should decrease as a person’s income increases. If it is the latter, then National will be solely to blame if it tries to say the cost of superannuation is unsustainable. Alternatively, if it is ultimately planning to cut publicly provided retirement incomes, then people deserve to be told.”
Jim Anderton’s submission shows that continuing New Zealand Superannuation at age 65, indexed to wages, is sustainable for the long term provided the government sticks to Accord principles.
“The future cost of super is affordable, but the government needs to keep the means to afford it”, Jim Anderton said.
He has released the Progressive Party’s submission to the 2010 New Zealand Superannuation Retirement Income Review today.
Jim Anderton was one of the signatories of the 1993 Superannuation Accord that aimed to provide long-term stability to superannuation.
The main principle agreed to by all parties was that ‘the net amount provided from public funds for a retired person should reduce as that person’s total income increases’.
That principle could be met by a surcharge on superannuation or by a progressive income tax scale.
“If the National Government makes income tax less progressive in this budget by reducing the top personal income tax rate, then how is it going to meet the Accord principle that ‘the net amount provided from public funds for a retired person should reduce as that person’s total income increases’?
“Either National will ultimately reduce entitlement to superannuation, or it no longer believes that the amount provided from public funds should decrease as a person’s income increases. If it is the latter, then National will be solely to blame if it tries to say the cost of superannuation is unsustainable. Alternatively, if it is ultimately planning to cut publicly provided retirement incomes, then people deserve to be told.”
Jim Anderton’s submission shows that continuing New Zealand Superannuation at age 65, indexed to wages, is sustainable for the long term provided the government sticks to Accord principles.
“The future cost of super is affordable, but the government needs to keep the means to afford it”, Jim Anderton said.
Tobacco Excise bill
04/05/10 10:16 Filed in: Speeches
Jim Anderton’s speech in Parliament on the Excise and Excise-Equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill first reading, 29 May 2010.
This bill to increase excise duties on tobacco products is being introduced under extraordinary urgency. I understand that. The House therefore understands that this issue is urgent: there is no public debate allowable; there is no select committee and so on. I happen to agree with what the government is proposing and I will support it. But this Bill highlights the need the reasons why this step, in particular, is being taken to increase the price of a legal drug that is dangerous to the health of any New Zealander who partakes of it.
The reason this bill is being introduced is that the price effect of tobacco is significant. If we increase the price of tobacco we reduce the volume of tobacco that is smoked. There is a linear relationship and many studies all around the world will show exactly the same thing for product after product.
Unfortunately, if we look at supermarkets of New Zealand, we see that Coca-Cola is cheaper than water or milk. People buy Coca-Cola. Why? It is because it is cheaper. It may well be disastrous for the teeth of the children who are drinking it – and it is – but nevertheless, because it is cheap, people buy it.
That is why this price effect will be relevant in this case. I have to say, however, that just 24 hours ago, within minutes of the Law Commission’s report on alcohol being introduced into this House, the government immediately, through Simon Power, the Minister of justice, reacted and said it was not going to put up the price of alcohol.
It did that immediately. It did not give any consideration to the report, the ink was not dry on the report, and we were told that no, the Government was not going to increase the price. Would a price increase for alcohol reduce alcohol consumption? Yes, it would. It is a very effective means of doing it. I know that because I introduced a Bill that increased the price of so-called light spirits, at 23 per cent proof alcohol, which target young people. I was lambasted by the industry.
Full page ads were taken out against me personally, but light spirits were reduced by 85 per cent in terms of sales, and then they went off the market. That does not mean to say that there are not still alcopops and stuff like that, but these were lethal light spirits.
They were 25 per cent proof of alcohol drinks with vodka, gin, whisky, and so on. So we know that this 30 per cent increase in tobacco will be effective, but Mr Power said about alcohol that such a change would be unfair to all the people who drink alcohol. Well, I presume that an increase of more than 30 per cent in the price of alcohol will be unfair to some of the people who smoke alcohol too. I still agree with it, but it is amazing how an attitude can change in one day from one position on the issue of alcohol to another on tobacco, where we can have a crack at them.
Chris Tremain: You might find that a significantly larger proportion of the population enjoy a glass of wine. What a stupid thing to say.
Hon. Jim Anderton: Oh, I see. We will hear this. Here is the industry line. I can hear it. Mr Dunne is not here, so we have plenty of acolytes in his place. They are sprouting the industry line. It is true that 5000 people die in New Zealand every year from tobacco smoking, and that makes this kind of measure significant and important. What is there about the social, economic, and health problems of alcohol that make it different from tobacco? Is it a significant social and economic health cost? We just heard Dr Blue say that the cost of tobacco-related harm is $1 billion to $2 billion.
The cost of alcohol-related harm to New Zealand is indicated by reputable economists and analysts to be in the order of $2 billion to $3 billion a year.
That is at least as much as smoking and could well be more, so there is no problem about it being a significant cost. Is drinking alcohol a health risk? Yes, it is. It is a very serious health risk, and the jury is coming in on that all the time.
Are between 60 – 80 per cent of all police arrests to do with alcohol abuse? Yes, they are. Are 60 per cent of the people who are in our prisons affected by alcohol? The answer is yes.
Yet we are told that we desperately need passed under extraordinary urgency through the House a tobacco-related bill, which I personally support, a day after we are told that the price effect is not going to be contemplated in alcohol, when demonstrably all the effects of the tobacco use plus some additional effects are there in evidence before us.
The Government has a knee-jerk reaction against that. Why is that? Well, the tobacco industry is on the ropes, and the people are brave now. Dr Blue has said that she did not use to believe the philosophy behind this bill, and there are plenty of people on the other side of the house like her.
When Helen Clark was pushing for a change like this one, and was pilloried as the minister of Health for doing it in – when was that, 1990?
Hon Darren Hughes: Yes, 20 years ago.
Hon Jim Anderton: So that was 20 years ago. She did not have too much support then, but now it is the brave thing to do. Why? Because everything has been done, practically, and the tobacco industry has given up. It knows that it is a done deal. The liquor industry has not given up. Oh, no. It is really into this issue, and it will fight it tooth and claw.
The brave Government will take on the ‘on the ropes’ tobacco industry, but it will not have a bar of taking on the liquor industry, which is actually a much more significant and important problem facing New Zealand now than ever before.
Will raising the price of alcohol reduce the volume of alcohol consumed? Absolutely, it will but we have no courage from the Government on this issue. So under extraordinary urgency we are passing this bill.
As for the Government’s opposition to raising the price of the most dangerous drug in New Zealand, I could call that a word which I am not allowed to use in this House, so I will say that it is one of the most significant acts of double standards I have ever seen.
On one day a serious drug is not to be touched in terms of price, even though the price effect will be very effective, and I acknowledge that; on the next day, the industry that really does not have a feather to fly with will be clobbered into the ground because the brave government will take it on after all the hard work has been done.
It will not take on an industry that is still up there and fighting tooth and claw to hang on. I heard the representative of the hospitality industry this morning on Morning Report. He admitted that every single thing in the alcohol legislation that he agrees with is a vested interest of the industry.
He said that. He said: “Yes, it is a vested interest of the industry. I admit that. Yes, that is too, and that is too.”
The interviewer asked him whether there was anything thing that was not a vested interest among the measures he agreed with. The answer was no. Oh well, we understand where the industry is coming from. But Mr Dunne did not. He had to meet the representatives of the industry seven times, and he was not sure what they meant.
He knew what Professor Doug Sellman meant; Peter Dunne would not meet with Doug Sellman at all.
I support this legislation, and I have contempt for the government that is bringing this in one day after it backed off completely from doing the most effective thing on alcohol. I have contempt for it;
I am telling members that now. It would have been an act of at least some responsibility to do that yesterday. This initiative needed to be done, and it has to be done regularly. I support it, but I contrast it with the completely mealy-mouthed approach we had yesterday on alcohol, and I am ashamed of the government for that.
This bill to increase excise duties on tobacco products is being introduced under extraordinary urgency. I understand that. The House therefore understands that this issue is urgent: there is no public debate allowable; there is no select committee and so on. I happen to agree with what the government is proposing and I will support it. But this Bill highlights the need the reasons why this step, in particular, is being taken to increase the price of a legal drug that is dangerous to the health of any New Zealander who partakes of it.
The reason this bill is being introduced is that the price effect of tobacco is significant. If we increase the price of tobacco we reduce the volume of tobacco that is smoked. There is a linear relationship and many studies all around the world will show exactly the same thing for product after product.
Unfortunately, if we look at supermarkets of New Zealand, we see that Coca-Cola is cheaper than water or milk. People buy Coca-Cola. Why? It is because it is cheaper. It may well be disastrous for the teeth of the children who are drinking it – and it is – but nevertheless, because it is cheap, people buy it.
That is why this price effect will be relevant in this case. I have to say, however, that just 24 hours ago, within minutes of the Law Commission’s report on alcohol being introduced into this House, the government immediately, through Simon Power, the Minister of justice, reacted and said it was not going to put up the price of alcohol.
It did that immediately. It did not give any consideration to the report, the ink was not dry on the report, and we were told that no, the Government was not going to increase the price. Would a price increase for alcohol reduce alcohol consumption? Yes, it would. It is a very effective means of doing it. I know that because I introduced a Bill that increased the price of so-called light spirits, at 23 per cent proof alcohol, which target young people. I was lambasted by the industry.
Full page ads were taken out against me personally, but light spirits were reduced by 85 per cent in terms of sales, and then they went off the market. That does not mean to say that there are not still alcopops and stuff like that, but these were lethal light spirits.
They were 25 per cent proof of alcohol drinks with vodka, gin, whisky, and so on. So we know that this 30 per cent increase in tobacco will be effective, but Mr Power said about alcohol that such a change would be unfair to all the people who drink alcohol. Well, I presume that an increase of more than 30 per cent in the price of alcohol will be unfair to some of the people who smoke alcohol too. I still agree with it, but it is amazing how an attitude can change in one day from one position on the issue of alcohol to another on tobacco, where we can have a crack at them.
Chris Tremain: You might find that a significantly larger proportion of the population enjoy a glass of wine. What a stupid thing to say.
Hon. Jim Anderton: Oh, I see. We will hear this. Here is the industry line. I can hear it. Mr Dunne is not here, so we have plenty of acolytes in his place. They are sprouting the industry line. It is true that 5000 people die in New Zealand every year from tobacco smoking, and that makes this kind of measure significant and important. What is there about the social, economic, and health problems of alcohol that make it different from tobacco? Is it a significant social and economic health cost? We just heard Dr Blue say that the cost of tobacco-related harm is $1 billion to $2 billion.
The cost of alcohol-related harm to New Zealand is indicated by reputable economists and analysts to be in the order of $2 billion to $3 billion a year.
That is at least as much as smoking and could well be more, so there is no problem about it being a significant cost. Is drinking alcohol a health risk? Yes, it is. It is a very serious health risk, and the jury is coming in on that all the time.
Are between 60 – 80 per cent of all police arrests to do with alcohol abuse? Yes, they are. Are 60 per cent of the people who are in our prisons affected by alcohol? The answer is yes.
Yet we are told that we desperately need passed under extraordinary urgency through the House a tobacco-related bill, which I personally support, a day after we are told that the price effect is not going to be contemplated in alcohol, when demonstrably all the effects of the tobacco use plus some additional effects are there in evidence before us.
The Government has a knee-jerk reaction against that. Why is that? Well, the tobacco industry is on the ropes, and the people are brave now. Dr Blue has said that she did not use to believe the philosophy behind this bill, and there are plenty of people on the other side of the house like her.
When Helen Clark was pushing for a change like this one, and was pilloried as the minister of Health for doing it in – when was that, 1990?
Hon Darren Hughes: Yes, 20 years ago.
Hon Jim Anderton: So that was 20 years ago. She did not have too much support then, but now it is the brave thing to do. Why? Because everything has been done, practically, and the tobacco industry has given up. It knows that it is a done deal. The liquor industry has not given up. Oh, no. It is really into this issue, and it will fight it tooth and claw.
The brave Government will take on the ‘on the ropes’ tobacco industry, but it will not have a bar of taking on the liquor industry, which is actually a much more significant and important problem facing New Zealand now than ever before.
Will raising the price of alcohol reduce the volume of alcohol consumed? Absolutely, it will but we have no courage from the Government on this issue. So under extraordinary urgency we are passing this bill.
As for the Government’s opposition to raising the price of the most dangerous drug in New Zealand, I could call that a word which I am not allowed to use in this House, so I will say that it is one of the most significant acts of double standards I have ever seen.
On one day a serious drug is not to be touched in terms of price, even though the price effect will be very effective, and I acknowledge that; on the next day, the industry that really does not have a feather to fly with will be clobbered into the ground because the brave government will take it on after all the hard work has been done.
It will not take on an industry that is still up there and fighting tooth and claw to hang on. I heard the representative of the hospitality industry this morning on Morning Report. He admitted that every single thing in the alcohol legislation that he agrees with is a vested interest of the industry.
He said that. He said: “Yes, it is a vested interest of the industry. I admit that. Yes, that is too, and that is too.”
The interviewer asked him whether there was anything thing that was not a vested interest among the measures he agreed with. The answer was no. Oh well, we understand where the industry is coming from. But Mr Dunne did not. He had to meet the representatives of the industry seven times, and he was not sure what they meant.
He knew what Professor Doug Sellman meant; Peter Dunne would not meet with Doug Sellman at all.
I support this legislation, and I have contempt for the government that is bringing this in one day after it backed off completely from doing the most effective thing on alcohol. I have contempt for it;
I am telling members that now. It would have been an act of at least some responsibility to do that yesterday. This initiative needed to be done, and it has to be done regularly. I support it, but I contrast it with the completely mealy-mouthed approach we had yesterday on alcohol, and I am ashamed of the government for that.