Latest News RSS

Reserve Bank statement shows unaffordability of cut in top tax rate

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-12-09T12:18:35+13:00

It’s National’s fault.

The cuts in the top tax rate from 39 cents down to 33 cents since the 2008 election are helping to put New Zealand’s recovery on hold, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.

The Reserve Bank today identified “elimination of New Zealand’s fiscal deficit” as a factor that’s adding pressure to interest rates and keeping the dollar high.

“The fiscal deficit is caused because the government reduced the top tax rate. 42% of the tax cuts since the 2008 election went to the top ten per cent of income earners.

“If the government had only pushed out the threshold at which the highest tax rate applies, and not cut the top tax rate from 39 cents to 33 cents, most of the fiscal deficit would not exist.

“Because of the irresponsible cut in the top rate, interest rates are higher and the dollar is higher - putting pressure on our exporters and making it cheaper for foreigners to come in and buy up New Zealand.

“This is National’s idea of economic management: The recovery has stalled. Business investment is ‘below average.’ Households are not spending. Homes aren’t selling. House prices are falling. Unemployment is higher than it was when National took office and wages have stalled.

“The Reserve Bank today made clear that this is all National’s fault. But will the Prime Minister accept that the buck stops with him? Don’t hold your breath,” Jim Anderton says.

Energy Companies passing on commercial costs to vulnerable customers

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-12-09T12:15:32+13:00

Many hard hit Kiwis are being unfairly penalised by their energy company for paying bills over the post office counter, says Wigram MP Jim Anderton. Hidden fees up to $1.50 per payment are being passed on to customers of SOE Meridian Energy, Mercury Energy (SOE Mighty River Power’s retail arm) and local energy company Bay of Plenty Electricity, in a bid to encourage other means of payment.

Jim Anderton said “The billpay service has always been in place as part of a commercial agreement between the post shop network and the energy companies. Recently a few rapacious energy companies, two of whom unfortunately happen to be state-owned enterprises, have been passing these costs on to customers.

“People who pay their bills via the post shop do so because they don’t have bank accounts or access to a computer. Usually they are elderly or poor. For energy companies to single out certain customers for extra fees is unfeeling at best and greedy at worst.

“People should not be punished for paying their bills in cash or in person. Many elderly people will never use internet banking or pay via direct debit as they don’t trust these methods and prefer the interaction of dealing with someone at the counter.

“Energy companies need to show a bit more compassion for their customers and understand their needs better. Counter payment fees should be bourne by the energy companies as part of their normal overhead costs”, says Jim Anderton.

Liquor industry ad an ‘Orwellian’ history lesson

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-11-30T10:57:46+13:00

Jim Anderton, leader of the Progressive Party and MP for Wigram, said today that anyone who wants to know how $200,000 a day is spent by the liquor industry to promote its product only needs to look at the new DB Export advertising on television, in the print media and cinemas as it slashes into New Zealand history with methods that would be appreciated by ‘1984’ author, George Orwell.

“The ad is set in 1958 around the time of the so-called ‘Black Budget’ of Labour’s Finance Minister, Arnold Nordmeyer. It would be a good resource for NCEA students and their teachers as a classic example of Orwellian propaganda techniques used to distort history,” Jim Anderton said today.

The 1984-type facts and the truth are as follows:

1984-type fact: “Fancy a pint with a tight fisted bore” is the way the Labour Party’s Finance Minister Arnold Nordmeyer is portrayed. It continues, “As far as misers go, old man Nordmeyer took the cake”.

Truth: In the 1958 Budget, Nordmeyer had raised excise on beer, spirits, cigarettes and petroleum products as a part of a package to meet a balance of payments crisis that had been caused by the previous National government. Arnold Nordmeyer was putting the interests of New Zealand before short term political gain. He was not trying to stop the working man’s drink after work but to raise revenue from non-essential items. Nordmeyer was also of course the architect of New Zealand’s Public Health Scheme, at the time the envy of the world.

1984-type fact: Nordmeyer’s “infamous 1958 ‘Black Budget’ was a puritanical regime that taxed the world’s best beers so heavily no ordinary bloke could afford to drink them.”

Truth: In 1958, the amount of imported beers coming into New Zealand was next to nothing. The working man did not drink imported beer at the pub or at home. Imported beer did, however, have a tax advantage over the local product. Nordmeyer equalised the excise so that local and imported beers would be equally taxed.

1984-type fact: “Morton Coutts found the situation about as tolerable as a tofu burger. His mission was gutsy but simple: to dodge Nordmeyer’s tax by brewing the world’s best beer, right here. ”
The ad implies that Morton Coutts invented the Continuous Fermentation Process as a result of the ‘Black Budget’ to give working men back their export quality beer.
The ad shows the ‘toffs’ being thrown out of the public bar to be reclaimed by working men now that they can afford to drink good beer again (which has been altruistically ‘created’ for them by Morton Coutts).

Truth: Morton Coutts had taken over his father’s brewery in 1918. He had used the innovative Continuous Fermentation Process since 1956 – not as a result of the ’58 budget.

Nordmeyer’s budget, besides raising revenue to meet a serious budget deficit, was aimed at encouraging manufacturing in New Zealand so that full employment policies were maintained. Rather than beating the system, Morton Coutts was doing exactly what the Labour government wanted – building up a strong manufacturing base and creating jobs for New Zealand workers.

1984-type fact: Film footage titled ‘Men rioting in Wellington’. One is led to believe it is working men protesting over the price of a jug!

Truth: The ad uses real film footage shot during the Waterfront Lock-out of 1951. There were no riots in Wellington or public demonstrations of any sort against the 1958 Budget.

“Pumping hundreds of thousands of dollars a day into advertising campaigns like this one reveals once again the liquor industry’s cynicism towards New Zealand’s social problems, our history and the working people that drink the fourth most amount of beer per head in the world. For the liquor industry, there are no bottom lines. The creators of this ad would have a place in George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth where lies are truth and truth are lies,” Jim Anderton said.

Pike River Tragedy Statement

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-11-24T19:06:37+13:00

Progressive leader and Wigram MP Jim Anderton has expressed his deep sorrow at hearing the news that the 29 trapped miners at the Pike River mine have died. A second blast earlier this afternoon shows that the concerns over safety which have been of significant concern to Supt. Gary Knowles were well justified.

“I am very saddened to hear the latest news reports on the fate of the 29 miners. My thoughts and prayers are with their loved ones at this difficult time. This event has been one of the darkest hours for the West Coast and its community.

“Mining is an iconic industry on the West Coast but it is now our serious responsibility as a NZ community to see that such a tragedy is prevented from happening again.”

Pike River Mine

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-11-25T15:03:27+13:00

Jim Anderton’s speech in Parliament on the Pike River Mine tragedy.

I am deeply saddened by the loss of the 29 miners in Greymouth, and my thoughts and prayers are with the loved ones they left behind.

As a nation we have clung onto a glimmer of hope in the past six days.

With every passing hour we put our faith in the possibility of a miracle.

Fears over entering the mine safely, which had been such a concern to Superintendent Gary Knowles were well justified when the second explosion occurred yesterday. He and Pike River Chief Executive Peter Whittall have shown calm, leadership and great strength at such a difficult time.

Hope for the 29 men trapped down the Pike River Mine disappeared yesterday.

This event has been a tragedy for the West Coast and its community. It brought back sad memories to many who have been there before.

Mining is an iconic industry on the West Coast. That does not however suggest that the rest of the country has no responsibility for ensuring that such a tragedy does not happen again.

I refuse to accept any of the deaths are an acceptable cost of mining. It is the responsibility of all of us, from mine operators to the government and this parliament to take steps to strengthen mine safety so that the safety of all of our miners is protected.

Pike River is a modern state-of-the-art mine with presumably all the latest safety technology, but it didn’t save the lives of the 29 men who lost yesterday.

The new mine was on the same coal seam as the mine in Brunner, where 65 men were killed by choking gas in 1896. It echoed the Strongman mine explosion, which killed 19 miners. And there have been, even very recently, many other similar disasters in other countries.

How many more deaths must we experience in this industry before we ask some very serious questions about the viability of this type of mine?

It will be the best possible tribute to those who died if we take significant steps to adopt safer techniques before we potentially put any more miners in harms way.

Of the 21 coal mines in New Zealand, 16 of them are opencast. These mines produce 84% of our total output. Similarly the Australian coal-mining industry, which is much larger than New Zealand’s, 76% of its production is from opencast,

Since colonisation, the West Coast has a long history of mining. The risk of mining has always been faced by miners and as a consequence, their families.

We must make mining conditions safer.

Today is the time to reflect on the human tragedy of this latest mining disaster but these precious lives must not be lost in vain.

Extended free parking critical to city’s survival

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-11-18T11:01:36+13:00

Progressive leader and Wigram MP Jim Anderton supports the proposal to extend free car parking to inner-city shoppers in the run up to Christmas, and sees the move as ‘critical’ in breathing life back into the city centre after the devastating impact of the earthquake.

“The Council should be doing everything it can to encourage people back into the city centre. Extended parking will give Christmas shoppers an incentive to venture into town again and bring much-needed revenue to the city’s shops and cafes.

“One of my constituents recently took out of town visitors to shops in the city centre and over three days paid $36 in parking fees – hardly an incentive to avoid the suburban malls.

“Many Christchurch businesses have suffered huge losses and face an uncertain future or imminent closure if their revenue doesn’t improve at this crucial time. Extending free parking is a positive step in the right direction and shows goodwill to people when the city needs them most.

“Our inner-city’s very survival relies on shoppers and diners to keep its businesses afloat. The Council must take a longer term view on creating cheaper parking, easing congestion and making the city centre more user-friendly to avoid inevitable business closures and losing valuable custom to the suburban shopping malls”, says Jim Anderton.

Government out of step with the nation over liquor reform

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-11-11T16:00:35+13:00

The National Government is out of step with the majority of New Zealanders over alcohol reform says Jim Anderton, MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader.

“The mood of the country towards alcohol abuse is changing but it is being led by the public and the media, not the government”.

In a speech against today’s first reading of the Alcohol Reform Bill, Jim Anderton read out a nine point plan on how to create a major social problem in New Zealand to illustrate how out of step our current liquor laws are. The plan detailed all of the current issues New Zealand faces with alcohol abuse and highlighted the government’s lack of leadership and action towards reforming New Zealand’s drinking culture* (see note on page two).

“Why does this government have difficulty accepting alcohol is a drug?,” says Jim Anderton. “In a week where our country was shamed by boozy revellers at Eden Park, our government is showing resistance towards informed public opinion. Getting wasted shouldn’t be an ambition to which New Zealanders aspire”.

In spite of worrying statistics that one in every five Kiwis are drinking heavily, the government has chosen to steer away from New Zealand and International expert advice, despite volumes of supporting evidence.

“Heavy drinking affects the combined population of Wellington and Christchurch and is costing this country billions every year. You’d think the government would be sitting up and taking notice, yet this bill is a recipe for the status quo – which is a recipe for more disaster”.

The Alcohol Reform Bill does not adequately address price, raising the drinking age, accessibility to alcohol, advertising and marketing, or drink driving, all of which are major contributors to New Zealand’s heavy drinking problem.

“This week, organisers of Christchurch’s NZ Cup Day implemented a simple wrist band scheme that was removed from patrons thought to be intoxicated. This would have been unheard of five years ago. It shows the public are willing to change entrenched drinking habits but the government is displaying political cowardice by refusing to give leadership on this critical issue of alcohol abuse.

“You have to seriously ask the question, what is the National Party getting from the Liquor Industry that prevents it taking the obvious and necessary steps to seriously address the widespread demand from New Zealanders for genuine liquor reform”, says Jim Anderton.

Will Nats decline liquor money?

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-11-11T16:41:20+13:00

Liquor industry donations will be scrutinised closely after national MPs objected to claims that national takes money from the liquor industry.

Wigram MP Jim Anderton this afternoon asked parliament, “How much money is being put into the “Victory Fund” account of the National Party by the liquor industry – could we have an answer from National Party members today and/or from the liquor industry itself?”

National MPs objected to the question and wanted it ruled out of order, claiming the question suggested they were influenced by liquor industry donations.

Jim Anderton said that makes any liquor industry donations potentially a breach of privilege.

“If they don’t want to be criticised for taking money then they can’t take money from the industry. If they take money from the industry then they shouldn’t block criticism of how it looks when they take money from liquor and pass pro liquor laws.

“Even anonymous donations have a habit of finding public accountability. So I look forward to national honouring their commitment in Parliament today and refusing money from vested liquor interests.”

Alcohol Reform Bill

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-11-11T15:30:23+13:00

Alcohol Reform Bill

What would a nine-point plan on how the Government could create a major social problem in NZ look like?

Well, first you would take a drug which is known to be of high risk to public health (e.g. the equivalent of a Class B drug) and legalise it. Better still, you choose a drug that is known to directly cause aggression, but which also causes depression, is neurotoxic and carcinogenic so that the full range of health and social damage is likely to occur.

2nd Deny that the drug is actually a drug, by never mentioning the word and talk about it like it is a normal grocery item that you'd naturally expect to find in a supermarket.

3rd Make it really accessible, so that it can bought just about anywhere, at any time, on virtually any day of the year, especially in supermarkets.
4th Allow full and free commercialisation of it so that the price is really low in order for everyone to easily afford lots of it.

5th Make sure people under the age of 20 can legally purchase it.

6th Elevate drug pushing (of this drug) to be one of the most highly respected careers in the land. The bestowing of NZ Honours to industry leaders might be an effective way to do this.

7th Make sure you protect the drug pushers' right to promote the drug, especially to the nation's families through the most powerful means possible such as TV and billboards.

Turn a blind eye to any deception in the advertising such as links between using the drug and being cool, sexy, successful and part of the in-crowd.

8th Make sure that the drug is linked with everything that New Zealanders feel most proud about, especially sport. If there was going to be a major international event in NZ for instance, do everything you can to help the drug pushers promote their drug at the event.

The ultimate would be if the drug could become the centrepiece of the event. "Party Central" would be an excellent concept to work on. Perhaps the PM could get behind this.
9th Knowing that New Zealanders enjoy getting around in private motor vehicles more than just about any other country in the world, make sure that intoxication by taking the drug won't prevent them from driving their cars, and get your mates in the Automobile Association to back this position.
The first page of the law commissions report states:
Quote: “Alcohol is a legalized drug with the potential to cause serious harm. We propose a new policy framework that amounts to a paradigm shift in the regulation of alcohol compared with the current system. We anticipate there will be considerable resistance to some of the proposed measures.” End Quote.

I must admit I didn’t anticipate that the resistance would come from the Government!
The Government’s Alcohol Reform Bill to reduce excessive drinking is a recipe for the status quo.

This weekend’s appalling behavior at Eden Park, where a liquor ban wasn’t enforced, is proof the Government hasn’t gone far enough. It served to highlight the inadequacies of our current laws and shamed our nation abroad.

Why does this Government have difficulty accepting that alcohol is a drug?

This Government is not in step with the majority of New Zealanders. The mood of the country towards alcohol abuse is changing but it is being led by the public and the media, not the government.

In the same week as the Eden Park shambles, organisers of Christchurch’s NZ Cup day got it right by implementing a simple wrist band system that was removed from patrons thought to be intoxicated. This would have been unheard of five years ago. This action shows that the public are willing to change entrenched drinking habits.

Who would have thought that the Maori party’s proposal for a Smoke Free New Zealand in 2025 caused hardly a ripple of protest? It’s because the time is right. Let’s aim for a Drunk Free New Zealand too, it is in step with public opinion.

There is 70% support to lower the drink driving limit yet the Government needs ‘more research’.

What is this Government scared of in the face of all the facts?

Alcohol abuse is costing this country billions every year – not to mention the human misery caused.

This Government is normally a slave to the polls yet it is ignoring the polls on liquor reform.

Cheap alcohol is one of the main problems but this isn’t being addressed despite advice and research from international experts.

Our statistics on road deaths are horrific yet reducing the blood alcohol limit from 0.8 to 0.5 of alcohol per 100ml of blood ‘needs more research’. How many more deaths from drink driving must this nation endure?

One in every five New Zealanders has a drink problem. This is the combined population of Wellington and Christchurch!

Getting wasted shouldn’t be an ambition to which our people aspire.

This Government is showing political cowardice over the alcohol debate which begs the question….

What is the National Party getting from the Liquor Industry?

How much money is being put into the “Victory Fund” account of the National Party by the liquor industry – could we have an answer from National Party members today and/or from the liquor industry itself?

Jim's E-News November 2010

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-11-08T16:40:52+13:00

Opponent to review Kiwibank
Like putting a fox in charge of the chickens is how I described the decision by the National Government to appoint investment banker Rob Cameron to review New Zealand Post, the owner of Kiwibank. Had it been up to Mr Cameron, Kiwibank would not exist today.

When appointed to look at the business case for establishing Kiwibank, Mr Cameron reported to Treasury that it would neither succeed nor attract many customers. Both predictions proved wrong; Kiwibank has been a huge success and today has more than 800,000 customers.

Mr Cameron also predicted that Kiwibank would not be able to withstand the competitive response of the Australian banks. He was spectacularly wrong about that, too, and overlooked the benefits to New Zealand that occurred because the Australian banks were forced to reduce fees, improve services and stop closing branches.

The appointment of Mr Cameron to review New Zealand Post raises the obvious question about whether the it will be used as a launching pad for another round in the Government’s push to sell some or all of NZ Post and Kiwibank.

Why else would they appoint an individual who has prominently advocated for the privatisation of SOEs to help boost the share market?

The full statement can be found here.

Council inaction causing businesses to face closure
I have concluded that Council inaction and confusion in Christchurch is driving local businesses to the brink of closure following a ‘crunch’ meeting with Sydenham and Beckenham business owners, senior council staff and representatives from the insurance industry, government agencies and the commercial sector.

The meeting followed desperate calls from local owners whose businesses remain effectively paralysed two months after the 7.1 magnitude earthquake which rocked Christchurch. “Bricks, rubble and debris are piled high and have remained untouched for over eight weeks. The addition of cordons and traffic diversions are making pedestrian access a logistical nightmare for local businesses, and retail shops in particular are really suffering.

As a result of the meeting, the Christchurch City Council had effectively been put on notice to clear up the mess and put an end to the misery of local traders before many of them go out of business. Insurance companies have also agreed to treat individual cases on merit and on a ‘goodwill’ basis to speed up claims.

Too much time has been wasted since the earthquake, with conflicting advice, lack of communication and confusion over structural engineering reports, consent applications for repairs or demolition as well as new policy announcements on doubling the earthquake code requirement, all of which have delayed decisions on repairs and/or demolition. An urgent resolution is now critical, not only for the future but also for the very survival of a large amount of important businesses in Sydenham and Beckenham.

The full statement can be found here.

Also of interest:
Pleas to continue wage subsidy for quake hit firms [NZ Herald].
Sydenham retailers want action [Press]
Questions hang over future of shopping areas [Press]

Christchurch mayoralty
It took a seismic shift, but my bid for the Christchurch mayoralty was derailed by what was the third most significant natural disaster in the world so far this year. With incumbent Mayor Bob Parker trailing in the polls by 20%, the 7.1 magnitude Christchurch earthquake catapulted him into what turned out to be an unassailable lead, compounded by the assistance of an unquestioning media and the National Party in support.

Following the election result, I told a packed media conference that Mayor Bob Parker has a significant responsibility to deliver as the city’s rebuilding gets underway. I also warned that Mr Parker had received a clear message during the campaign that the secret decision-making and deals behind closed doors which had been a feature of his mayoralty would not be accepted by the people of Christchurch.

People’s Choice 2021, the centre-left coalition of Labour, Progressive Green and like-minded independents, had a successful local body campaign, doubling its representation on the City Council, from 2 seats to 4, and ensuring that community boards are now dominated by 2021 members.

I hope [the result] delivers a message to the new council that the people of Christchurch do want to see some change, and that some of the lessons learnt from the past are taken on board.

The Press summed up the post-election mood with the lead to its story: “He may have lost the mayoralty but Jim Anderton was treated like a rock star when he addressed his campaign supporters on Saturday night.”

Despite the mayoral loss, we have a great team in Christchurch and we will take the momentum from the mayoral race to the election campaign for a Labour-led victory in 2011.

And now, for something completely different

I may have lost the mayoral election, but during the campaign I discovered that I have a half-brother, Terry Byrne, living in Liverpool.

It transpires that my birth father, Matthew Byrne, left behind a family of three sons in the United Kingdom before coming to New Zealand where he married my mother. My father was subsequently killed in an accident and I was later adopted by his mother’s second husband, Victor Anderton.

Terry Byrne’s son realised the connection between our two families after reading about the story of my search for my natural father’s family origins in Drogheda, a town of 30,000 people 30 kilometres from Dublin. The rest, as they say, is history.

Although I was initially sceptical, the connection from both documents and family photographs became irrefutable.

Terry Byrne is the last of my UK siblings, brother still alive and l will go to Liverpool sometime soon to meet him.

For more, go here.

WARNING: Asset sales on Government agenda
I have warned that further asset sales could be on the Government’s agenda, and this could be one step closer with the release of the second 2025 Taskforce report which recommends that the Government should further privatise publicly-owned assets.

In a recent speech to the Fabian Society, I said that the National Party may well target power companies, roads, Kiwibank and a number of strategic local government assets such as water services, ports and airports for sale. I said the sales would be necessary to pay for the October 2010 tax cuts which gave huge benefits to the richest New Zealanders.

Asset sales coincided with the most dramatic collapse in New Zealand’s economic well-being in recent history, and led to a dramatic gap between the rich and poor. We lost 30% per capita income against Australia between 1970 and 1999, with the worst period between 1984 and 1994, the peak period when both Labour and National were selling assets.

Most of the assets sold during that period were at bargain-basement prices, the top 40 going for a total of $19 billion, just over one half of their combined real market value of $36 billion.

No example is more stark than the New Zealand Railways which was hocked off for around $400 million and allowed to become completely run down by the new American and then Australian owners. Subsequently, the Government was forced to buy back the tracks and then the rail company itself to guarantee the future of rail. The same for Air New Zealand.

By contrast, assets that have been retained have been a success; Meridian Energy’s business in Australia has returned $600 million to the New Zealand taxpayer, and been used to help pay for hospitals and schools. Most New Zealanders are opposed to selling our strategic publicly owned assets – but we have seen it done before and the National Party is indicating they will do it again if they get another term in government.

The Alcohol Reform Bill
boozedaznz – worth watching! Go to this You Tube video.

Two Drinks Max: Lobby power.

The new Alcohol Reform Bill is due to have its first reading in Parliament soon, following which the Select Committee will call for submissions from the public. This is the final opportunity to send comment to the Government about its response to the Law Commission’s review on the use of alcohol in New Zealand.

The Bill will focus on youth drinking and does not propose to deal with drink drive issues for two years, until further research is done.

The main features of the Bill include:
·         Splitting the purchase age for alcohol to 18 years for on-license premises and 20 for off-license (by conscience vote).
·         Restricting ‘ready to drink’ (RTDs) to a maximum of 5% alcohol and 1.5 standard drinks equals 10 grams of pure alcohol.
·         Strengthening laws around parental provision of alcohol to minors.
·         Continuing industry self-regulation of marketing and advertising while strengthening restrictions on advertising targeted to under-18 year olds
·         Introducing default licensing hours of 8am to 4am for an on-license premises and 7am to 11pm for off- licenses.
·         Implementing voluntary, local alcohol plans.
·         Cutting down on excessive alcohol promotions at point of sale.
·         Clarifying the definition of a supermarket.
·         Undertaking further research on the effect of setting minimum price levels.
·         Undertaking further research on blood alcohol levels for driving.

Alcohol Action NZ has produced submission postcards calling on Parliament to:
·         Put an end to cheap alcohol, beginning with a minimum price for a standard drink.
·         Make supermarkets alcohol-free.
·         Ban alcohol advertising and sponsorship.
·         Reduce the adult blood alcohol level for driving to at least 0.05 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood (presently at 0.08).

FREE submission postcards can be obtained by emailing: coordinator@alcoholaction.co.nz

More information can be found here.

TVNZ responds to Henry complaint
TVNZ has confirmed that comments by former Breakfast host, Paul Henry about Governor-General Sir Anand Satyanand and Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit breached standards of good taste and decency, were unfair and encouraged discrimination, in the Governor-General’s case, against New Zealanders who are not of a particular ethnicity.

In a formal complaint to TVNZ, I said that the question by Paul Henry to Prime Minister John Key, asking whether the next Governor- General would look and sound like a New Zealander, was a significant slur on the dignity and origins of the Governor-General, and in the worst possible taste.

I said that it was only after he and thousands of other New Zealanders complained about Mr Henry’s comments that Television New Zealand took the matter seriously, eventually leading to Mr Henry’s resignation. The Breakfast Show host repeatedly pushed the boundaries of good taste and was encouraged to be controversial by the broadcaster in search of ratings for its morning programme. It is not credible for a public broadcaster to egg on Paul Henry and then distance itself when he goes too far and crosses the line, TVNZ too must share responsibility.

Similarly, it is alarming that John Key just sat there and grinned when Henry made his comment. No other New Zealand Prime Minister would have allowed the comment to go unchecked. It was a significant failure of leadership, made worse by his lack of real action subsequently.

The ‘Henry’ incident was an ideal opportunity for the Government to look at the role and obligations of Television New Zealand and to refocus its position to that of a responsible public broadcaster.

Anderton addresses students at Lincoln
Telling students what it is like to be a ‘one-man band’ in Parliament was just one of the topics on the agenda when I recently addressed students at Lincoln University, just outside Christchurch.

They were described to me as an inquisitive class and they were. The 130 first year students asked a range of questions about my experience in Parliament and Cabinet, particularly given my long experience under MMP and the demands of juggling various roles and portfolios while in Government.

Conceding that, as one MP, I can’t get everything done nor can I get the media attention I might want for any given issue. However, I told the students that I picked out and put a lot of effort into a number of important areas: affordable dental care, alcohol and drug policies, superannuation, suicide prevention, banking and government support for research and development and for innovation.

Also addressed was the way in which I and the Progressive Party worked to form a cooperative coalition with Labour in government, made easier by the closeness of the philosophies and outlook of the respective parties. Although working closely with Labour, I also maintained my independence which meant that I was able to promote issues where, for example, our two parties may have had differing priorities.

One thing, I told the audience was that, while MMP can be improved, it provides better representation than the old two party, first past the post system. MMP also provides that, while the Government always has the majority in Parliament, there are more limits on its power than under the first past the post election system - the best news, I believe, those wanting a democratic form of government could hear.

NZ Post appointment of Cameron

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-10-28T17:00:52+13:00

There would have been no Kiwibank if the advice of investment banker Rob Cameron was followed - and that raises questions about his suitability for doing a review of the owner or Kiwibank, NZ Post, says Wigram MP and Kiwibank champion Jim Anderton.

“Rob Cameron was appointed to review the Kiwibank business case. He reported to Treasury that he opposed the creation of Kiwibank because it wouldn’t succeed, and wouldn’t get many customers. Today it has 800,000.

“Kiwibank achieved targets in eighteen months that Mr Cameron predicted would take eleven years to achieve. He could hardly have been more wrong.

“Mr Cameron also predicted that Kiwibank would not be able to withstand the competitive response of the Australian banks. He was spectacularly wrong about that, too - and overlooked the benefits to New Zealand that occurred because the Australian banks were forced to reduce fees, improve services and stop closing branches.

“After being spectacularly wrong about the success of Kiwibank, the appointment of Mr Cameron to review NZ Post looks like another round in the Government’s ongoing push to sell some or all of NZ Post and Kiwibank.

“Why else would they appoint an individual who has prominently advocated for the privatisation of SOEs to help boost the share market.”

Council should heed Ballantyne’s message

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-10-26T17:00:50+13:00

Progressive leader and Wigram MP Jim Anderton supports the call made by Richard Ballantyne in today’s Press to refocus on the important challenge of getting people back into the city centre.

“The Christchurch City Council should take heed of our most successful city retailer and take careful note of what he has to say”, Jim Anderton said.

“Ballantynes is Christchurch’s premier store and the only thing standing between success and disaster in Christchurch’s city centre, which has been dying for a number of years because of the proliferation and user-friendly environment of suburban shopping malls outside of the central business area.

“The Council should take on board Ballantyne’s views and include them in any plans to rejuvenate the heart of our city before it disintegrates any further,” says Jim Anderton.

Council inaction causing local businesses to face closure

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-10-31T17:00:21+13:00

Council inaction and confusion is driving local businesses to the brink of closure, says Wigram MP Jim Anderton.

A crunch meeting, chaired by Jim Anderton, was held on Thursday October 28th, between Sydenham and Beckenham business owners, senior council staff and representatives from the insurance industry, government agencies and the commercial sector.

The meeting agreed the situation had gone on for too long and an immediate resolution was required.

Insurance companies also agreed to treat individual cases on merit and on a ‘goodwill’ basis to speed up claims.

The Christchurch City Council has effectively been put on notice to clear up the mess and put an end to the misery of local traders before many of them go out of business.

“Almost two months after the earthquake parts of Sydenham and Beckenham still look like a war-zone.

“Bricks, rubble and debris are piled high and have remained untouched for over eight weeks. The addition of cordons and traffic diversions are making pedestrian access a logistical nightmare for local businesses and retail shops in particular are really suffering.

“The Council cleared up this kind of mess in the city centre weeks ago, so why has this iconic ‘character’ suburb of Christchurch been neglected?

“As a result of the meeting, I expect to see the clean-up and demolition finally get underway and for Colombo Street to be opened up to two-way traffic and parking again, as soon as possible.

“Too much time has been wasted since the earthquake, with conflicting advice, lack of communication and confusion over structural engineering reports, consent applications for repairs or demolition as well as new policy announcements on doubling the earthquake code requirement, all of which have delayed decisions on repairs and/or demolition.

“An urgent resolution to these matters is now critical, not only for the future but also for the very survival of a large amount of important businesses in Sydenham and Beckenham”, says Jim Anderton.

Jim's E-News September 2010

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-09-28T10:23:51+13:00

Get Jim’s E-News in your inbox here.

Election campaign issues Jim Anderton’s speech to Christchurch Rotary Club 21 September 2010

It is worth taking a moment to reflect once again on the trauma we have been through over the last two – three weeks. A similar strength earthquake earlier this year in Haiti killed 250,000 people. If it isn’t a miracle that everyone in our city is still alive after a 7.1 earthquake, I don’t know what would be. But the devastation has put us through trauma all the same. It’s brought shock, anxiety and stress.

We need each other – as individuals and as a community. We also need to be kind to ourselves and each other. We also need help – physical, social and psychological – to recover, and we need information as well as easy access to advice. And we need it now.

The heroes of the last ten days are all of us – the people of Christchurch – the people of Canterbury. It should make us proud to be Cantabrians and New Zealanders.

Canterbury Rugby teams are respected for their courage, determination and resilience.

The people of Canterbury will be held in awe by both current and future generations of New Zealanders for those same qualities – with one addition: their huge compassion and concern for one another.

The challenges which face our city now are at once a problem and a lifetime opportunity. We can rush it and risk getting the re-build badly wrong or we can engage with our whole community and bequeath a new heritage that will last for hundreds of years. We must make sure that Christchurch is rebuilt by people who respect what Christchurch stands for. A people’s Mayor is just that - a Mayor who puts people first. It is not a political left/right issue; it is simply an issue of priorities.

I do not believe that the people of this city want to throw away over 100 years of unique vision and heritage. I know you respect a ‘fair-go’ society too much to run the risk of it being ruined.

We must look ahead not just for three years, but for a hundred and more.
Christchurch was founded by settlers who quite simply believed that they could build a better way of life than the one they had left. It was tough but inclusive – and visionary. A case of, “we are our brother’s and sister’s keeper”, but we also expect you to do your bit. It is a strong tradition which we have unfortunately started to see unravel at the mayoral and Council level over the last three years.

In the end, the Mayoral and Council elections, voting for which has already started, will come down to trust.

Trust that your vote will win you respect and a voice at the Council table – not more of the same three-year sideshow this Mayor and Council have provided, fuelled with your money and favouring the exclusive vision of senior managers, not elected representatives. Christchurch deserves and needs better than that.

I promise to be a custodian of our tradition and heritage. I will renew and enrich them. We have in front of us both a sad and unique opportunity to rebuild Christchurch so that it is even better than ever.

What are the issues?

The problems we will have to resolve fall into several categories.

First, we need to help people get back on their feet - help families rebuild their lives, and businesses get back underway – and quickly. We need to rebuild our retail and commercial premises. And there will be an important role for the community organisation sector, as the glue that holds our society together

Second, we need a vision for our future. It should be a unified vision brought together through consultation and by trusting people. There are big decisions ahead - and I believe the previous council repeatedly made mistakes, because of secrecy and poor processes. It made those mistakes because of the poor way in which it made decisions.

Too often it took big decisions in secret, it didn’t consult, it didn’t release information - including fundamental information like how much big projects cost. And councillors voting records were not easily discoverable.

I want to rebuild a People’s City, so I will trust Christchurch people when we make big decisions. I won’t decide the future of the city in secret. I want to see the committees of Council re-instated to provide expertise and public participation while decisions are being considered, not after they have been made. The elected representatives, not Council officers must determine the policy direction of our City.

I want to see an urgent three-year action plan so that we can at least see the end in sight, and everyone knows where we are going. As part of the plan, we need to learn from this disaster so that we can make our city even safer

The third area that we have to address is our infrastructure and environment.

The clean up of our waterways, sewage and storm water is a chance to also make our city more environmentally sustainable.

And fourth, we need to be careful to preserve and rebuild Christchurch’s Arts and Cultural heritage – to the highest standard.

The inner city was dying before the earthquake. It can’t be used as an opportunity to shift development even faster and further out to the big malls, and to turn the inner city into a concrete wasteland.

We need affordable housing in the inner-city at the same time as we rebuild our neighborhoods.

So here’s what I would do

I would also set up a ‘People’s Commission’ to help rebuild our City, which I would chair as mayor. That would be supported by a new ‘Inner-City Revitalisation Unit’ with the best and brightest of Council officials directly responsible to the Mayor and Councillors.

I would involve business and community leaders, and all those with professional knowledge and experience – property owners, developers, business representatives, engineers, architects, urban design and heritage experts as well as representatives of ordinary Christchurch residents – all working co-operatively for the future of our great city.

We’ll hold open ‘People’s Forums’ for everyone to share in the ideas and decisions we need to take.

We all need to be part of the solution as we work to rebuild our city.

I want to stress the urgency of this. Big decisions are already underway about the future of Christchurch. I want all of those decisions to be made with an eye to rebuilding a People’s City.

They should be made with an eye towards a long term vision that all of Christchurch has had a chance to contribute to and own.

The Mayor has announced a Wellington based architect to lead the reconstruction. I wish there could be some consultative processes in place so that such decisions can be made in a more considered and democratic way.

For example, our rebuilding challenges need urban design leadership more than they need individual architects. These rushed and secretive decisions often turn out to have negative consequences and the names Henderson, Ellerslie, sandcastles and 24% social housing rent increases come to mind.
But the Henderson properties, and the Turners and Growers site, also now give us opportunities.

They should be developed for inner-city housing with commercial and retail facilities to assist their economic viability. This could be organised through a Council/ private sector partnership to help provide accommodation for thousands of people. Removing punitive development levies and other procedural obstacles would help to incentivise the re-build of our inner-city.

The knee jerk reaction to doubling earthquake strengthening measures may be one more nail in the coffin of inner-city re-development.

Civil Defence Headquarters

Finally, I want some hard questions asked about why the new $116 million Council Building was put out of action by the earthquake. It should have been the civil defence emergency centre for the city. But I now know that decisions were made that meant it could not have been.

I want to know what the local body leadership of the city was doing when these issues were discussed at regional civil defence meetings.

I don’t have any objection to the mayor’s actions since the earthquake, only support. But before the earthquake, - I am interested to know how many regional civil defence meetings the mayor attended in his term.

And I want to know what was done to make the $116 million council building ready to play its proper role as the civil defence headquarters. Remember, there was enough money in this building to buy a nice view from the top floor offices. There should have been readiness for an emergency. This made a material difference to the coordination of the response.

Communications were reduced because the glass surrounded Art Gallery (which ironically seems to have escaped unscathed) had to be used as the Civil Defence Headquarters.

What sort of civil defence headquarters after an earthquake is surrounded by glass?

Why wasn’t the new Council Building up to standard for use in an emergency?

Why wasn’t the specially prepared Regional Council Civil Defence Headquarters used by both the City and Regional Defence teams?

We have survived a miracle this time. But we have to learn from this experience and all of the debriefings have to be full, frank and public. The earthquake changed everything. We need to listen and include people in decision-making as Christchurch plans and reconstructs the city.

I want decisions about rebuilding Christchurch to be made in the open, not in secret. I want a city rebuilt for people, not secret deals for property developers.

We have a big job to do. Rebuilding infrastructure and a revitalised inner city is more important than wasting rates and increasing debt on projects beyond the resources of the city’s ratepayers. Standard and Poors were looking at a ratings review of Christchurch City Council’s debt situation prior to the earthquake.

Other funding – Canterbury Recovery Bonds, Government (Auckland motorway = $10B) EQC = $14B reserve fund

We have to get things done. I have a reputation for doing just that and I am putting my experience of central government (Acting PM, Dep. PM, Senior Minister for 9 years), local government ((MCC, ACC, ARC), and our local community (26 years MP for Sydenham/Wigram at the service of the people of Christchurch City if they wish to take advantage of it.

On alcohol reform - Government response predictable – but won’t cut it

This government has missed the best opportunity in a decade to reform our alcohol laws by failing to take the tough decisions that would actually make a difference to New Zealand’s drinking culture.

All the expert advice is that if you put up the price, consumption will decline. But this government is merely asking the industry to provide sales and pricing data over the next year, so that it can investigate a minimum pricing regime.

The National-led Government has chosen to cherry pick some recommendations while ignoring others. It has ignored the call for restrictions on the advertising and sponsorship of alcohol, for changes to the cost of alcohol to deter all drinkers, and for a clear message on the drinking age - an increase to 20 years old.

Splitting the drinking age sends a mixed message. It’s like saying ‘I sort of don’t want my teenagers to binge drink at the weekend. Just do it at the bar and I’ll turn a blind eye’.

I have campaigned for years to raise the age back to twenty years at bars and off-licenses. My colleague Matt Robson's Member's Bill provided for this back in 2005. But when it came to the Second Reading, the House failed to support an increase to the age.

I will be using my position as a Member of Parliament to move an amendment to raise the age for both bars and off-licenses. Given the two major parties are allowing a conscience vote on this, my amendment has a real chance of succeeding.

The changes announced today will not bring about the changes that are needed to tackle the drinking culture head-on. If John Key’s government had the courage to stand apart from the alcohol industry, it would have lowered the drink drive level to 50mg from its present level of 80mg.

The truth is the alcohol lobby has got to John Key’s government and they don’t have the guts to do what’s right.

Nick Smith’s suicide comments insensitive - again

The National-led government has cut counselling services for New Zealand families who have lost family members to suicide. Now to add insult to injury, it wheels out ACC Minister Nick Smith to make yet more ill-informed and insensitive comments about suicide victims.

Minister Nick Smith is quoted as saying that there is no difference between losing someone to suicide ‘to where a loved one is lost to heart disease or is lost to cancer.’

Regretfully, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. There is a difference. A sudden death is always a tragedy. But at least a post-mortem will tell a family - ‘You’re loved-one died of a heart attack.’ No post-mortem will ever tell the family of someone who has committed suicide why they did it.

The families are left in a state of shock with very little information. They blame themselves. And research has shown that there is a very real danger of other members of a family committing suicide unless they get the help they need after the loss.

As Associate Minister of Health in charge of the suicide prevention programme, in the last Labour-led government, I introduced new support services so that experienced clinical psychologists and Victim Support workers had the resources to help families after they have lost a loved one to suicide.

The National government has recently announced that it is cutting this service. The cost of the service nation-wide is about $3 million.

Mental health has always been the ‘Cinderella’ of the health system. Nick Smith is making things worse with his ignorant comments.

The number of recorded suicide deaths has been on a downward trend since these programmes were introduced.

Whilst the number of recorded suicide deaths remains high, there has been a significant downward trend in recent years, partly due to these programmes to help families after a suicide.

From a high of 516 deaths in 1999, this had fallen to 483 deaths in 2007.

Among young people, those aged 15 to 24 years, the trend was more marked dropping from 120 deaths in 1999 to 94 in 2007 – a drop of 21.7%.

Get Jim’s E-News in your inbox here.

Dental care issues – Report 2010

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-08-10T03:00:24+12:00

Thank you for inviting me today.

I see you’ve had a few visits from politicians lately. Phil Goff was here last month.

And of course your local MP Winnie Laban has been traveling the country to raise publicity about cuts in aged care.

I’m here today to talk to you about a new approach to dental care. It’s good to see groups like yours creating spaces for political discussion. I commend you for it.

Politicians can come under fire at times. Which is a shame because most MPs I come across in parliament genuinely think they can make the world a better place.

I might criticise their ideas - not necessarily their motivation.

Recently it’s been financial advisors and businessmen in the oil industry who’ve been unpopular and for good reason when you look at the facts. Take BP’s ex CEO Tony Hayward, for example. He complained recently that he was unfairly 'demonized' in the U.S. over his handling of the Gulf oil spill.

In response, demons complained that they were unfairly compared to BP’s Tony Howard!
Talk about how to make yourself really unpopular:

Last week the BP president said, we’re not to worry. That BP will survive this disaster. That's like someone running over your dog and saying, 'Don't worry, my car is fine!’

Today, I want to talk to you about the cost of dental care.

As some of you will know, I will not be standing again as MP for Wigram. I hope to be the next Mayor of Christchurch.

I have decided to make the most of my remaining months in parliament and use the time to advocate for affordable dental care. I’ve got my team in parliament developing a workable, practical policy for affordable dental care. Even post recession, it is do-able.

All that is lacking is the political will to make it happen.

The fact that times are hard, and the cost of living is increasing is even more of a reason to subsidise dental care.

I bet you’re finding that it’s costing more to fill your car; more to heat your house. And wait till GST increases to 15% in the supermarket. You’ll be paying more for your grocery bill than ever before.

At the same time, Australian wages have increased by $17 a week, compared to a miserly $3 for Kiwi workers.

So not only is this National government failing to close the wage gap between us and Australia, but Kiwis pay a bigger percentage of their wages at the supermarket and the petrol pump.

After all that, who in this room can afford to pay for regular dental care? A whopping fifty per cent of New Zealanders do not receive regular dental care. Some even end up in a hospital emergency department where they get their teeth removed.

In my parent’s day, teeth were extracted and false teeth provided, often as a 21st birthday present! Don’t have to worry about teeth decay after that!

I had a letter recently from an elderly woman who couldn’t afford to get new dentures, and was forced to super-glue her teeth in so she could keep eating and maintain appearances.
You’d think we live in a third world country when you hear stories like that.

The baby boomer generation, on the other hand, will go into old age with their own teeth, often heavily filled and a number of them missing.

It’s a positive that they still have their own teeth, but they’re going to have to spend even more money just to keep those teeth going.

It’s a shock that there isn’t more outrage about how so many people can not afford to get dental care. A high level of untreated decay is a classic sign of poverty.

Perhaps if people died from dental decay, like they do from cancer or heart disease, there would be more political action.

There’s some good news though; the last Labour and Progressive government extended free dental care to all kids under 18 years. The former Labour Minister of Health - and former school dental nurse - Annette King extended free dental care to cover kids who were not at school or enrolled at a dentist.

Before that, these kids fell through the cracks and didn’t qualify for free dental care. She restored the School Dental Service which was in danger of disappearing all together after the previous National government had closed all the training schools.

The number of dental therapists had dropped from 1000 in 1990 to a mere 400 by 1999.
That was reversed. And that means that if we did have a government which wanted to roll out affordable care beyond 18 year olds, to older New Zealanders, we would have the capacity to do it.

This year marks the 90th anniversary since the School Dental Service was set up. We made history when we did this. It was the first of its kind in the world.

90 years on, though, there are still too many New Zealanders not getting regular dental care because they simply can’t afford it.

I’m developing practical policies to support a subsidised state system, and I’m doing it in consultation with dentists, dental therapists and hygienists. I’ve had many letters and calls, in support of this campaign. But there are considerable hurdles to overcome.

The most vulnerable people in our society are unfortunately still the under 18s. As Health Minister in 2008, Labour’s David Cunliffe issued a list a ten health targets. 'Improving oral health' was the second target.

When Tony Ryall became Health Minister he issued 'a slimmed down set of health targets’ - from ten to six. Oral health was not one of them.

That’s the first thing we have to change. Oral health must be put back on the list of priorities.

I’m realistic however, about what it will take to introduce an affordable public dental system for everyone. It will have to be done in stages; in the same way we introduced affordable GP visits, starting with the youngest followed by the oldest of our citizens. It was right to focus on dental care for the 0-18 year olds first. Now we have to identify all vulnerable groups and target them.

Once kids leave school, they are at risk. From the age of 18 many of these young adults will probably never go to the dentist. Some of them don’t see the dentist again for ten, twenty or even more years.

When they do finally turn up at the dentist, the problems can be so big it’s almost impossible and costly to treat them. Cost is a significant barrier. But we also have to incentivise people to go to the dentist, and get them used to looking after their own teeth.
That will involve an education program together with a public campaign which is long overdue.

Another vulnerable group is pregnant women. As mothers they will set habits for dental care at home with their children. That’s why affordable treatment for the adult population is so important.

I’ve never understood why pregnant women get free GP visits during their pregnancy, but not free visits to the dentist. Dental problems start for children before they are born.
Many parents do not know that their children’s teeth are forming before they are born. Although the 0-5 age group is entitled to free dental care, some new mothers are not aware of this.

The next big problem we have, as many of you here know - is New Zealanders in retirement. The truth is, most retired New Zealanders (75%) live on their superannuation income alone. People in retirement homes are particularly vulnerable. They often don’t get the treatment they need.

I’m pleased to hear that the Dentist’s Association is about to roll out training for rest home workers on how to better manage dental care in rest homes.

So what are the options for affordable dental care?

I believe that affordable dental care for everyone is achievable. Just like I believed that we could have our own New Zealand owned bank - Kiwibank - when everyone told me it couldn’t be done.

I would like to see dental care brought into New Zealand’s general health system. Our research tell us that it would cost less than $1 billion to finance basic dental care for the whole population.

That includes the money we already spend on free visits for under 18 year olds. And it includes the cost of those who end up in emergency departments. One billion dollars sounds like a lot until you realize that the National Government is about to give away $14.33 billion in tax cuts over four years from October 01 2010 to the most affluent New Zealanders.

We could raise this money by not giving such a large tax cut to the richest New Zealanders - $6500 to the CEO of Telecom a week and $500 to the Prime Minister every week - in return for a life time of free or affordable dental treatment.

We’ll actually save money by promoting prevention and helping new parents introduce good habits for their children.

The other problem we have is a shortage of dentists in some provincial areas - like the Kapiti Coast. There’s a straight forward solution to that problem too.

At the moment young doctors can have their student loans paid off if they agree to work in hard to staff areas for the first few years after they graduate. We have the same scheme for vets. There is no reason why we couldn’t extend it to dentists too.

So we could be on the brink of achieving affordable dental care. It’s possible, it’s affordable and it’s a social tragedy that half our population doesn’t get the dental care they need.

What we don’t have at the moment is the political will to make it happen.

I hope that Grey Power will get behind a campaign to make dental care affordable, particularly for retired New Zealanders. It’s not fair, but it’s a fact of life, that as you get older, the care of your teeth and gums becomes a bigger problem.

I heard of a couple of old friends the other day. One was in his 90s and close to death. The friend of the dying man, who’d recently, spent all his life’s savings on his teeth, asked his friend:

“Will you do me a favour? Will you tell me if they have free dental care in heaven?”
The dying man replies: “You’re my best friend. I’ll do this for you.”
And then he dies. Next day the friend hears a ghostly voice and realises it’s his old friend.
“I’ve got good news and bad news,” says the ghost. “The good news is that there’s free dental care for everyone in heaven.”
So his friend still alive and well on the Kapiti Coast says: “Well, what’s the bad news?”
“The bad news is - you’re booked in on Wednesday.”

Thank you for listening to me today, and let’s hope future New Zealanders don’t have to wait to get to heaven before they get affordable dental care.

Nick Smith’s suicide comments insensitive - again

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-08-26T12:27:49+12:00

“Last week the government cut counselling services for New Zealand families who have lost family members to suicide. Now to add insult to injury, they wheel out ACC Minister Nick Smith to make yet more ill-informed and insensitive comments about suicide victims, says MP for Wigram Jim Anderton.

Yesterday Nick Smith was quoted as saying that there is no difference between losing someone to suicide ‘to where a loved one is lost to heart disease or is lost to cancer.’

“He doesn’t know what he’s talking about. There is a difference. A sudden death is always a tragedy. But at least a post-mortem will tell a family - ‘Your loved-one died of a heart attack.’ No post-mortem will ever tell the family of someone who has committed suicide why they did it.

“The families are left in a state of shock with very little information. They blame themselves. And research has shown that there is a very real danger of other members of a family committing suicide unless they get the help they need after the loss.”

As Associate Minister of Health in charge of the suicide prevention programme, in the last Labour-led government, Jim Anderton introduced new support services so that experienced clinical psychologists and Victim Support workers had the resources to help families after they have lost a loved one to suicide.

The National government announced last week that were cutting this service. The cost of the service nation-wide is about $3 million.

“Mental health has always been the Cinderella of the health system. Nick Smith is making things worse with his ignorant comments,” says Jim Anderton.

The number of recorded suicide deaths has been on a downward trend since these programmes were introduced.

Whilst the number of recorded suicide deaths remains high, there has been a significant downward trend in recent years, partly due to these programmes to help families after a suicide.

From a high of 516 deaths in 1999, this had fallen to 483 deaths in 2007. Among young people, those aged 15 to 24 years, the trend was more marked dropping from 120 deaths in 1999 to 94 in 2007 – a drop of 46.6%.

Saving lives is more important than saving dollars

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-08-22T03:26:05+12:00

Progressive leader and Wigram MP Jim Anderton has criticised the government for cutting counselling services for people in Christchurch and other parts of New Zealand who have lost family members to suicide.

“As Associate Minister of Health in charge of the suicide prevention programme, in the last Labour-led government, I introduced these new support services so that experienced clinical psychologists and Victim Support workers had the resources to help families after they have lost a loved one to suicide,” Jim Anderton said.

“It’s not just because it’s the humane and right thing to do - to help people at the worst time of their lives - but because research shows that there is a very real danger of other members of a family committing suicide unless they get the help they need after the loss, by suicide, of a family member.

“It is an outrage that the National Government thinks it is no big deal to cut the only ‘Help Line’ that these families have for the sake of saving about $3 million dollars.

“What makes it even worse is that the number of recorded suicide deaths is on a downward trend since we introduced these programmes. We’re having some success. Now is not the time to stop.”

Whilst the number of recorded suicide deaths remain high, there has been a significant downward trend in recent years.

From a high of 516 deaths in 1999, this had fallen to 483 deaths in 2007. Among young people, those aged 15 to 24 years, the trend was more marked dropping from 120 deaths in 1999 to 94 in 2007 – a drop of 46.6%.

“Unlike the road toll the factors causing people to attempt suicide are complex. That’s why we need a range of initiatives and responses to prevent people attempting suicide and to support families when they lose a loved one.”

In 2007, research showed that grief after a suicide can raise a wide range of issues for those affected, including the need for information about suicide and mental health problems, the need for social and emotional support, and access to counselling and therapy.

“To pull the rug on funding for counselling services when we know we’re getting results and saving lives, is unforgivable”, Jim Anderton said.

Government response predictable

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-08-23T04:25:01+12:00

This government has missed the best opportunity in a decade to reform our alcohol laws by failing to take the tough decisions that would actually make a difference to New Zealand’s drinking culture, Jim Anderton, MP for Wigram and Progressive leader said today.
“All the expert advice is that if you put up the price, consumption will decline. But this government is merely asking the industry to provide sales and pricing data over the next year, so that can investigate a minimum pricing regime,” Jim Anderton said.
Today Justice Minister Simon Power announced the Government’s alcohol reforms in response to the Law Commission Report which called for sweeping changes to alcohol legislation.
“The Government has chosen to cherry pick some recommendations while ignoring others. It has ignored the call for restrictions on the advertising and sponsorship of alcohol, for changes to the cost of alcohol to deter all drinkers, and for a clear message on the drinking age - an increase to 20 years old.
“Splitting the drinking age sends a mixed message. It’s like saying ‘I sort of don’t want my teenagers to binge drink at the weekend. Just do it at the bar and I’ll turn a blind eye’.
“I have campaigned for years to raise the age back to twenty years at bars and off-licenses. My colleague Matt Robson's Member's Bill provided for this back in 2005. But when it came to the Second Reading, the House failed to support an increase to the age.
“I will be using my position as a Member of Parliament to move an amendment to raise the age for both bars and off-licenses. Given the two major parties are allowing a conscience vote on this, my amendment has a real chance of succeeding,” says Jim Anderton.
“The changes announced today will not bring about the changes that are needed to tackle the drinking culture head-on. If John Key’s government had the courage to stand apart from the alcohol industry, it would have lowered the drink drive level to 50mg from its present level of 80mg.
“The truth is the alcohol lobby has got to John Key’s government and they don’t have the guts to do what’s right,” says Jim Anderton.

Christchurch Earthquake

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-09-07T15:23:11+12:00

Jim Anderton’s speech in Parliament.

My thoughts and those of this House are surely with the tens of thousands of people from my city who are only now realising the full impact of this disaster. The one ray of light is the miracle that not one citizen was killed.

I’ve been moving round the suburbs of Christchurch - and I can see that the damage is even worse than many people first thought.

But first a tribute to the spirit of the people of the city. The elderly men (even older than me) sweeping up glass on the footpath in Selwyn St Village – over the road from my electorate office, at 7a.m. on the Saturday morning of the Quake!

A neighbour carrying an elderly sick woman from her home to his, so he can look after her.

150 students cleaning up the overwhelming mess in the neighbourhood streets of Hoon Hay and Halswell. Students often get a bad rap but their sense of community and responsibility deserves high praise.

I want to pay tribute to the many hundreds of people like this who have helped in the aftermath of the earthquake. I want to especially thank the Mayor, the Civil Defence team and their workers, the police, firefighters, Red Cross and thousands of volunteers for their dedicated work.

All these people are working long days to get food and water to those who need it, to clear the rubble, and make buildings safe.

And then they go home to their own houses which have been damaged and their own families who are suffering.

I want to thank the people from across the country that have offered help and been a source of strength and inspiration to the families and businesses affected by the earthquake in Canterbury.

Today, every New Zealander is a citizen of Christchurch.

It makes me proud to be a Cantabrian – (even if by adoption) - and proud to be a New Zealander to see these offers of help in times of desperate need.

I also want to say, that the clear and concise messages from Mayor Bob Parker have helped all the people of Christchurch in the immediate aftermath. We’ve been in no doubt that we need to boil our water for 3 minutes before drinking! He deserves credit for his clarity in a time of crisis.

Prime Minister John Key’s determination to be on-site and available has been appreciated by everyone.

I would like to see however, a cross-party commission or body so that we can utilise all the skills of our Christchurch MPs, and Councillors no matter what their political persuasion. We all have knowledge and experience and skills to offer.

Now is the time to work together for the sake of our city.

I would like to offer John Key’s ministers on the ground, and Mayor Bob Parker our hand of help. Let’s start to re-build this city together.

First we have to stabilise the situation and provide relief to those in urgent need. We need to provide medium and long-term accommodation to those who can’t return to their homes.
There is the obvious damage in the inner-city.

Then there is the less obvious but no less serious damage to suburban housing and infrastructure.

There might not be the dramatic pictures of our inner-city buildings turned to rubble, and the TV cameras might not be there, but I can tell you that many of our suburban homes will never be lived in again.

Thousands more are at risk of being demolished. Imagine the stress and trauma that is going to cause as people realise this?

Like most people in Christchurch, I live in the suburbs. I want to see help to people living here.

The elderly couple who have lived in their solid 1960s home for decades, and now that house in the suburbs will have to be demolished? What are they going to do? Are they going to re-build?

The whole country - and the government - is going to have to get behind every family and business in Christchurch.

The government needs to make a commitment to move quickly.

If people are fully insured, they may get sufficient from their insurance company – or they may not. But what about those that are not fully insured. There could be up to 100,000 homes affected. It’s going to take months or even years to fully recover. The cost of recovery is likely to be well over $2 billion.

So far the government has given $5 million to the Mayoral Fund. That is, of course, never going to be enough.

We are going to need the whole country and the government to get behind Christchurch.

Because it’s not just homes that have been destroyed. It’s also jobs.There are people who may never go back to their work place. There are businesses that are fast going under as we speak.

First we have to provide immediate relief to people who have lost their incomes and have bills to pay, but no wages coming in. People need some certainty about this. They need to know that they will be helped now.

Then we have to talk about a long term plan to re-build our city and create jobs and re-build businesses. That needs to involve everyone.

Decisions need to be made about public areas.

No decision should be made behind closed doors.

I call on the Mayor and the government to be inclusive. There are MPs and Councillors in Christchurch who could be helping out right now but are not in the loop.

They too have skills and knowledge and experience to give.

I hope both local Councillors and Members of Parliament can meet together to work in the interests of the city.

Christchurch Opposition MPs have made a commitment to work in a bipartisan way to first help those who have been affected by this tragedy, then to help plan how we re-build the city.

The people of Christchurch must be involved in the days ahead as we start the long haul of re-building our lives. We all need to come together today to show leadership in this time of the largest natural disaster to hit our city in living memory.

Jim’s E-News July 2010

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-08-03T14:17:29+12:00

Jim’s E-News July 2010.

Lowering the drink-drive limit is popular - why not do it? This government is so desperate to be liked it’ll make policy turns on anything unpopular, from Kiwibank and mining to foreign ownership of our land. So why won’t they follow the lead of 70% of New Zealanders who want to see the drink-drive limit lowered?

In Parliament this week, I criticised Transport Minister Steven Joyce for refusing to lower the drink-drive limit to 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood, in line with most other OECD countries like Australia.

At the moment the limit is 80mg. That is about 80% of a bottle of wine for an average man and about 60% of a bottle for an average woman, over a two hour period.

The URM poll shows that 70% of New Zealanders support lowering the drink-drive limit. Another poll on TVNZ’s Close Up program last night found that 68% favoured lowering the limit.

The truth is the alcohol lobby has got to John Key’s government and it has’t got the guts to do what’s right.
I asked Steven Joyce how he could reconcile his comments last year that the existing drink-driving limit was ‘ridiculous’ with his decision this week to spend two more years researching the ‘ridiculous’ limit.

The Motor Trade Association have said that it's surprised that the government needs a further two years of research. Our level is already high by international standards, and alcohol is recognised as a significant contributor to New Zealand's high road toll.

The Ministry of Transport has estimated that reducing the limit could save up to 33 lives, prevent as many as 680 injuries, and save up to $238 million every year.

We don’t need more research. We know that people are able to drive in this country while clinically intoxicated. That’s not good enough. What we need now is urgent action.
John Key’s government has shoved the issue in the too hard basket for reasons it is difficult to fathom.

How to keep your power bill down I chaired a public meeting last Sunday for Christchurch residents to hear from the experts on how to keep their energy bills down this winter.

Power companies based on hydro power, for example, do not emit lots of carbon, so they don’t have to pay a carbon fee. But they benefit from higher market prices for electricity.

These government-owned companies pay a dividend to the government. The profits come back to the government. There is no reason why the government can’t give some of that windfall profit back to you.

In the last election I campaigned for a $200 power rebate for people on low incomes. The chilling reality is that some people face winter power bills they simply can’t afford. When you are on a fixed income and then you get a $400 monthly power bill coming through the mail, how is that going to be paid for?

Just a quarter of the power companies’ gross profits would pay for a $200 winter power rebate for every low income household in New Zealand. That includes superannuitants.

Other countries have a winter rebate. In the UK for example the government provides a winter fuel payment of £250 for over 60s and £400 for over-80s. The State of Victoria in Australia has a similar scheme.

But I wouldn’t hold your breath with this National government. We managed to keep the ‘For Sale’ signs away from Kiwibank. But John Key has made it clear that the publically owned electricity companies could well be up for sale.

If that happens, one thing is for sure. Your power bills will go up even higher, and there will never be a chance for a winter rebate again.

A meeting like this can not only give useful advice on savings for your power bills but can give information on what to do if John Key and his government decide to sell the power companies. People need to be warned. Ask your local Member of Parliament to hold a meeting in your electorate on these issues.

Practical measures to save money on your power bills Community Energy Action’s Bede Martin and Orion Energy’s Roger Sutton set about providing practical solutions and advice at the Christchurch meeting on making efficient use of energy and reducing electricity bills this winter. The key things they recommended that can be done around the home to save $s are:

Windows are the single biggest cause of lost heat. Insulation Kits will cut down drafts and make a big difference to the warmth of your home.
Curtains, if drawn before the temperatures drop late afternoon, will keep the warmth in.
Use ‘door sausages’ to reduce drafts.
Fit plastic door and window seals to keep drafts out.
Dry clothes outside to avoid the build up of moist air.
Shop around the power companies for the competitive price plans or talk to your power company about your options.
A night plan on your electricity bill can cut down power usage by 20%.
By spending $50 on energy efficient bulbs, you can save an average of $100 a year.
Heating water is one of the single biggest energy users. Insulating your water cylinder can save up to $100 a year on the fuel bill.
Roof insulation can save up to $500 a year.
Turning the beer fridge on only in the weekend can save $100 a year.
Turning off a heated towel rail can save $100 a year.
$150 a year is being wasted on appliances left on stand-by mode.
Avoid using unflued gas heaters as they create moisture and are very expensive to run, plus they have health disadvantages.
It is not necessary to have a heat pump running continuously. Put it on a timer and only use to heat up rooms when required.
Shower rather than bath to save on hot water.
Shop around for the best deals with insulation and heating options. Some companies quote a lower level of insulation or energy efficiency than is practical.

Community Energy Action’s Warm Babies Programme and Elderly Health Programme provide subsidies for those in the community most in need of a warm home to stay healthy. For more information Community Energy Action Trust on 03 374 7222 www.cea.co.nz or for advice call 0800 388 588 or www.energyadvice.org.nz

There is no way back to Kansas: Anderton speech in the House, 21 July We have just heard from the former spokesperson on the eradication of political correctness. And he wants to know why we were not making any noise while he spoke. It was because we were asleep. This is a government with no plan and no new ideas, but lots of smiles from Mr Key who is starting to look like a poor man’s Wizard of Oz. He is like a travelling magician who pulls out another trick every time that the one before does not work.

But we can only trick Dorothy and the Tin Man for so long, because the people of New Zealand are starting to see there is no plan. There is no way back to Kansas.

What has the Wizard of New Zealand pulled out of his bag so far? The 2025 Task Force? Don Brash has failed to deliver and is being kept on, to give another report next year. Yet he has run out of money already. That is some trick for the former Governor of the Reserve Bank, who was in charge of New Zealand’s monetary policy. He runs out of his budget in the first year of the task force.

Then we had the Job’s Summit. How is that going? There are no new jobs. Unemployment is on the rise. The government that my colleagues on my right and I were in halved unemployment to 4 percent by the time we went out of office. This government has increased unemployment by 50 percent already, and it is still rising.

Now the rate has almost returned to what it was under the previous National Government, and we cannot blame that on the recession, especially when the only idea to save jobs was a 9-day fortnight. That was meant to save thousands of jobs, by getting people to work less so that they were paid less, and businesses stayed afloat. That was the idea. At most it saved 100 jobs, for the whole of New Zealand.

Then John Key came up with another wizard idea. Employees could sell the fourth week of their holidays. That means the solution to New Zealand’s problems is to get people to work longer. Previously the solution was for people to work less, and now it is for them to work longer.

Then we had the cycle way. This was meant to create jobs. The cycle way was the great new innovation for New Zealand. Tourist industries were meant to pop up all along the cycle way. All we have seen so far is pictures of John Key on a bike, smiling as always. It will take more than a pushbike and a cycle way in New Zealand to fix up the New Zealand economy.

However, the government has the answer; it is mining. We dig up the country, just like Australia, and we’ll catch up to Australia. What happened to that idea? It is another flip-flop, because the smiling Prime Minister does not want to be unpopular. He discovered that this idea was not at all popular.

40,000 people marching in Queen Street convinced him of that. So that is not going to happen. If John Key and his government were serious about growing the economy, they would not pay just lip service to the farming sector. That sector is our largest economic earner. The truth is that agriculture makes up 43 percent of New Zealand’s exports.

There is nothing wrong with supporting tourism, but there is a heck of a lot wrong with not supporting farming, and ignoring it. If he thinks we can grow the New Zealand economy while ignoring the farming sector and building cycle ways, he is dreaming.

What kind of Mickey Mouse economics smashes the Fast Forward Fund for research in the primary sector, and cancels the Research and Development tax credit for business, in favour of a cycle way? We do away with the New Zealand Fast Forward Fund, we do away with research and development rebates for business, but we replace them with a cycle way. Now that will work. Yeah, right!

Handing over agriculture portfolio
I have announced I am handing over the role of opposition agriculture spokesperson as I want to give someone else the opportunity to get up to speed before next year’s election, given that I won’t be standing for Parliament again.

In my remaining time as an MP, I have decided to prioritise workable models for affordable dental treatment and the reform of alcohol legislation.

The Progressive Party campaigned for affordable dental treatment in the 2008 election. I have also been an active spokesperson for the +5 solution to alcohol reform which involves increasing the purchase age and curbing the sale and marketing of alcohol.

During my term as Minister of Agriculture and Forestry from 2005 to 2008, I set out to put the farming sector back where it should be, at the centre of the government’s economic strategy, after it had been demoted to a ‘sunset industry’ by former governments. I created the Fast Forward Fund which would have seen $2000 million go towards research and development in the primary sector. I will continue to advocate for agricultural issues in public life.

Affordable dental care update Since the last election, I've been looking at what it would take to introduce affordable dental care for all New Zealanders. It can be done. Our research tell us that it would cost less than $1 billion to finance basic dental care for the whole population. That includes the money we already spend on free visits for under 18 year olds. And it includes the cost of those who end up in emergency departments.

It would cost even less to give just the over 65s affordable care. I'm realistic that we would need to introduce subsidised care in stages, just like we did when we introduced affordable GP visits under a Labour-Progressive government. So why not start with the over 65s? We could raise this money either through income tax, or through a small ACC type earner’s levy. In return, people get a life time of free or affordable dental treatment.

The problem of looking after teeth in your later years is only going to get worse as the baby boomers age. In my parent’s day, teeth were extracted and false teeth provided, often as a 21st birthday present! The baby boomer generation on the other hand, will go into old age with their own teeth, often heavily filled and a number of them missing.

They're going to need help.

The other problem we have is a shortage of dentists in some provincial areas of New Zealand. There's a straight forward solution to that problem too. Bonding. At the moment young doctors can have their student loans paid off, if they agree to work in hard to staff areas for the first few years after they graduate. That scheme should be extended to dentists. It's already been extended to vets. If you have an emergency dental problem in Gisborne over the weekend, you have to drive to Napier. But getting young 'pioneer dentists' to Gisborne to work would solve that problem. Those young dentists might decide they like the East Coast lifestyle, and stay for even longer.

At the moment dental care is too expensive and fifty per cent of New Zealanders do not receive regular dental care. That's a national crisis and something has to be done. The solutions are staring us in the face, and I'll continue to fight for affordable dental treatment for all New Zealanders.

On ACC Earlier this year Ruth Dyson and I highlighted the actions of Nick Smith and the ACC which resulted in the imposition of unreasonable rules on those seeking surgery to remedy injuries caused by accidents. We predicted there would be a flood of ACC claimants seeking access to elective surgery because ACC would not fund them.

The Budget papers, released 10 days ago have proven us right.

In the first six months of last year, ACC turned down 5019 applications for surgery and the extra money Tony Ryall highlighted as being available for additional elective surgery, has gone to treat these cases with, of course, no reduction in the numbers of the waiting lists.

SIGN UP TO RECEIVE JIM’S E-NEWS IN YOUR INBOX HERE.

Translators and Interpreters

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-07-10T11:59:59+12:00

Annual conference of Translators and Interpreters – Opening speech by Jim Anderton MP

Thank you for the invitation to speak to you today. A warm welcome to Christchurch to those of you who have come to our city – particularly if it is your first visit.

I’d like to thank your President Sibylle Ferner, Vice-President Patrick King, and Peter Tuffley for the invitation.

Some of you have travelled from Auckland and Wellington to be in Christchurch today. Welcome to the global capital of the South Island. You’ll be pleased to know we speak the same language as you.

You may or may not be aware that there’s an election coming up in our city and I’m standing to be the next Mayor of Christchurch. If successful, I’m serious about turning this city into a Global Centre - for IT, for food processing, for tourism.

I’d like to think that people like you will be in hot demand in this city - and that your professional services will become a growth industry in the international city of Christchurch. You might even think of moving here.

A quality service
As I was preparing for this speech today, it struck me that most New Zealanders are ignorant of the service you provide. Yet we are an increasingly a multicultural nation. The number of languages we speak is growing.

We need people like you to help us understand each other, and to help us trade with other countries.
But we don’t just need people who speak different languages, we need professional interpreters and translators.

It takes years to become a professional at what you do. Being bilingual is not enough. I don’t think many people grasp the importance in the understanding of other people and nationalities.

Your Society deserves praise and thanks for creating an organisation that recognises qualifications and encourages some form of accreditation. For 25 years it has worked hard to promote an awareness of what you do in New Zealand, and I am happy to be here today to support that. There’s a stark contrast between New Zealand and Australia in this respect.

In Australia, the importance of having translation and interpreting done by qualified professionals is actively recognized by having a national accreditation agency. That is lacking in New Zealand.

Trial aborted after bad translation
And yet not taking a professional approach can have terrible outcomes. We saw this recently when an inaccurate translation in a major methamphetamine trial meant that the trial was abandoned.
The Judge complained that "significantly inaccurate" mistakes had been made in translating evidence into Cantonese.

The defendant was facing a life sentence. A lot was at stake. He got off free because the translation wasn’t good enough. Words had been omitted, added and wrongly translated and the wrong choice had been made between words similar in sound.

The Judge said it was fundamentally important that translations in criminal trials were of an appropriately high standard. Clearly - quality is worth paying for.

When we don’t pay for it, bad things happen and people’s rights are ignored. Things can go badly wrong in the commercial sector too.

When Pepsi started marketing its products in China a few years back, they translated their slogan, ‘Pepsi Brings You Back to Life’ pretty literally.

The slogan in Chinese meant, ‘Pepsi Brings Your Ancestors Back from the Grave’.

Translating from another language into English is equally risky when done by amateurs. I heard of an advertisement by a Hong Kong dentist the other day that read: ‘Teeth extracted by latest Methodists’.

Or a Copenhagen airline ticket office which had translated an advert into English: ‘We take your bags and send them in all directions.’

One of my favorites, as a good Catholic boy, is an American T-shirt maker in Miami who printed shirts for the Spanish market to promote the Pope's visit to the US. Instead of "I saw the Pope" (el Papa), the shirts read "I saw the potato" (la papa).

When times are hard, businesses that rely on good translations should resist the temptation to save money by employing people who are simply bilingual - but are not necessarily professionals.

The challenge of the internet
I know that one of your challenges in a globalised world dominated by the internet, is on-line translation services. They are free and easy to use. But they are not always accurate.

Try translating ‘New Zealand Society for Translators and Interpreters’.
Translated into German and then back into English, it comes out as: ‘Company of the sea and land news of the translators and interpreters.

And from Spanish back into English:
‘Society of the warning of the sea-track of the translators and the interpreter’

With this sort of nonsense all over the internet, it really can feel like we live in the Tower of Babel.
Once again, the moral is clear; quality is worth paying for. The internet may be free, but it isn’t always accurate.

Having said that, new technology in any industry is also an opportunity. Part of the challenge you face is to embrace that technology and make it work for you in a globalised market.

I’m sure the internet has opened up markets for you. Many of you I know, work on contract and run your own businesses.

These days you can translate material and send it back to clients across the world within a few hours via the internet. Your shop is open 24 hours a day, and that’s good for business.

Not so good for weekends and work/life balance, I know – only too well!

Don’t forget, there are other industries which are also facing the challenge of new technology. An obvious one is NZ Post. People don’t write letters as often these days, so what future does NZ Post have?

Rather than get in the bunker, and blame new technology, NZ Post has adapted its business model.
It has looked at the huge success of Trade Me for example, and decided that while people might not be getting letters these days, they are getting things picked up and delivered after buying and selling items on Trade Me.

NZ Post’s courier arm is therefore growing. It may be that courier deliveries become its key business in the future. Apart, of course, from KiwiBank – which also is the result of NZ Post adapting to the electronic communication era and falling use of letter deliveries and stamp sales.

Competition from poor countries
The challenge for you is to also adapt your business to new technology and make it work for you.
The truth is, the world will always need the services of people like you, whether it’s via the internet or face-to-face.

I know that cheap labour prices from poorer countries in the developing world can undercut your rates and take work away from you. The same has been true in other industries too - like telecommunications for example.

Call centres in New Zealand are closing at alarming rates and companies like Telstra Clear are moving their call centres from Christchurch to countries like the Philippines where wages are cheaper.
I don’t like it, and I’ll fight to keep those jobs in New Zealand and in Christchurch – on issues such as quality, customer service and local knowledge.

But if the long term trend is to move call centres offshore, then we have to find new and satisfying jobs to keep people employed. That means investing in knowledge and research and development so that New Zealand stays ahead of the global market. We all have to adapt.

(Interpreting is more than just translating)
I know that some of you here today are professional translators dealing with the written word, and some are interpreters, dealing with the spoken word.

All of you do more than just translate or interpret words from one language to another.
You serve people in our community.

This is certainly true for our ethnic communities, whether Samoan, Japanese, Somali or Iraqi. You know better than anyone, language is not only a vehicle for day-to-day communication. It is also a repository of our own identity and culture.

Many of you go into these communities, and you do it with sensitivity and empathy. You help people deal with the bureaucracy in hospitals, schools or government departments.

I know there is a growing number of people in New Zealand who either do not speak English or whose level of English is not yet good enough to deal with doctors or health providers.

The Health and Disability Commission’s Code of Patient’s Rights includes the right to a competent interpreter. But this right is often effectively denied when trained interpreters are overlooked in favour of cheap, non-professional interpreters.

The pitfalls of that are obvious when you get a misdiagnosis from a doctor or in a hospital, for example. Some people can’t even read medical instructions on a medicine bottle.

Interpreting for people is a serious business and you don’t want to get it wrong. Although, on a lighter note there may be times when you’re sorely tempted.
I’m reminded of the story of a Mexican bandit who made a specialty of crossing the Rio Grande and robbing banks in Texas. Finally, a reward was offered for his capture, and an enterprising Texas Ranger decided to track him down.
After a lengthy search, he found the bandit, snuck up behind him, put his trusty six-shooter to the bandit's head, and said:
"You're under arrest. Tell me where you hid the loot or I'll shoot you."
But the bandit didn't speak English, and the Ranger didn't speak Spanish.
As luck would have it, a professional and accredited interpreter from New Zealand was in the saloon and translated the Ranger’s message.
The terrified bandit blurted out, in Spanish, that the loot was buried under the oak tree behind the Saloon.
"What did he say?" asked the Ranger.
The interpreter answered, "He said, 'Get lost, Gringo. You wouldn't dare shoot me.'"

Languages need protecting
Language is a powerful tool. I’m sure you have to use all the powers of your intellect to get the meaning of a text or a conversation right. It must challenge your sense of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ translations, when you sometimes catch yourself translating the same paragraph differently on different days!

I find it amazing that in 2005, a language expert was hired by James Cameron to develop an entirely new language for the very successful film ‘Avatar.’ He needed a language for the Na’vi, the indigenous race of humanoids on the moon called Pandora.

Imagine creating new sounds, new rules for grammar and a whole new vocabulary? It’s amazing that new languages can still emerge - even in the make-belief world of film-making.
Of course the reality is that the world is losing languages.

The Director of Samoan Studies at Victoria University in Wellington has said that the most recent census indicates an alarming decrease in the number of people who speak Samoan in the home, for example. It’s been said that it takes just one generation to lose a language, and three generations to build it up again.

Local Christchurch issues
Before I end, I would like to pay tribute to the Canterbury branch of your Society. In March your members met at the Refugee and Migrant Centre for the last time. This has been the venue for your meetings for many years.

Sadly, the Centre closed down this year because of lack of funding, some of it withdrawn by the Christchurch City Council, and it now no longer exists. This is a real loss to those refugee and migrant communities in Christchurch and also to your Society which had built up a long standing relationship with the people at the Centre.

I want you to know that you will have my support for your on-going work in Christchurch if I am the next Mayor.

Conclusion
Finally, I want to wish you all the best for your conference. I have nothing but praise for the work that you do in our communities. And on the theme of the conference - the opportunities and challenges that globalisation presents after the recession - I would encourage you to embrace new technology.

Don’t be afraid to adapt your business models to suit changing global markets. I’m sure that many of you are already doing this and I hope business will boom for you in the coming years.

There will never be a time when we don’t need your services, not least because we are a multicultural nation vitally dependent on world trade.

Don’t resist change and suffer the consequences - like one of the two translators overheard talking on a ship recently:
"Can you swim?" asks one.
"No" says the other, "but I can shout for help in nine languages."
Good luck for the future and thank you again for inviting me to be with you today.

Lowering the drink-drive limit is popular - why not do it?

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-07-28T15:43:38+12:00

“This government is so desperate to be liked it’ll make policy turns on anything unpopular, from Kiwibank and mining to foreign ownership of our land. So why won’t they follow the lead of 70% of New Zealanders who want to see the drink-drive limit lowered?” says MP for Wigram Jim Anderton.

In Parliament yesterday Jim Anderton criticised Transport Minister Steven Joyce for refusing to lower the drink-drive limit to 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood, in line with most other OECD countries like Australia.

At the moment the limit is 80mg. That is about 80% of a bottle of wine for an average man and about 60% of a bottle for an average woman, over a two hour period.

The URM poll shows that 70% of New Zealanders support lowering the drink-drive limit. Another poll on TVNZ’s Close Up program last night found that 68% favoured lowering the limit.

“The truth is the alcohol lobby has got to John Key’s government and it has’t got the guts to do what’s right.”

Jim Anderton asked Steven Joyce how he could reconcile his comments last year that the existing drink-driving limit was ‘ridiculous’ with his decision this week to spend two more years researching the ‘ridiculous’ limit.

The Motor Trade Association said yesterday that it's surprised that the government needs a further two years of research. Our level is already high by international standards, and alcohol is recognised as a significant contributor to New Zealand's high road toll.

The Ministry of Transport has estimated that reducing the limit could save up to 33 lives, prevent as many as 680 injuries, and save up to $238 million every year.

“We don’t need more research. We know that people are able to drive in this country while clinically intoxicated. That’s not good enough. What we need now is urgent action.

“John Key’s government has shoved the issue in the too hard basket for reasons it is difficult to fathom,” says Jim Anderton

Anderton hands over agriculture portfolio

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-07-21T12:57:30+12:00

MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader, Jim Anderton, today announced he is handing over the role of opposition agriculture spokesperson.

“I want to give someone else the opportunity to get up to speed before next year’s election, given that I won’t be standing again,” Jim Anderton said.

“In my time remaining as an MP, I have decided to prioritise workable models for affordable dental treatment and the reform of alcohol legislation.”

The Progressive Party campaigned for affordable dental treatment in the 2008 election. Jim Anderton has also been an active spokesperson for the +5 Solution to alcohol reform which involves increasing the purchase age to 20 years and curbing the sale and marketing of alcohol.

Jim Anderton was Minister of Agriculture and Forestry from 2005 to 2008 under the Labour-Progressive government. He is seen as responsible for putting the farming sector back at the centre of the government’s economic strategy after it had been demoted to a ‘sunset industry’ by former governments.

He created the Fast Forward Fund for the primary industry sector which saw a $700 million research and development fund established which was planned to grow to $2000 million over ten years. The private sector was to match government funding $ for $ and investment interest earned would build the total fund to around $2000 million.

John Key’s National government got rid of the Fast Forward Fund as well as tax credits for businesses investing in R&D. That was a loss of over $2.5 billion for the productive, export earning sectors of the New Zealand economy.

“John Key hardly mentions agriculture. But if he thinks he can grow the New Zealand economy while ignoring the farming sector and by building cycle ways he’s dreaming

“I will continue to advocate for agricultural issues,” Jim Anderton said.

National Government has no ideas

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-07-21T17:54:17+12:00

Jim Anderton’s speech in the General Debate in parliament

This is a government with no plan, no new ideas - but lots of smiles from Mr Key - who is starting to look like the Wizard of Oz.

A traveling magician who pulls out another trick every time the last trick fails.

But you can only trick Dorothy and the tin man for so long.

Because the people of New Zealand are starting to see - there is no plan. There is no way back to Kansas.

What has the Wizard of New Zealand pulled out of his bag so far?

We’ve had the 2025 Taskforce which was meant to show how we could catch up Australia.

What happened to that? Nothing. Don Brash failed to deliver - no surprises there - as the Kiwi kid says about the Aussie kid on that TV ad.

But Don’s still being kept on to give another report next year!

Yet he’s run out of money already; some trick for a former Governor General of the Reserve Bank in charge of New Zealand’s monetary policy!

Then we had the job’s summit.

How’s that going?

No new jobs and unemployment is on the rise.

We halved the rate of unemployment when we were in government to under 4%.

Under this government it has risen to 6% already- an increase of 50%.
Now It’s almost returned to what it was under the last National government

You can’t blame that on the recession.

Especially when the only idea to save jobs was the 9-day fortnight. That was meant to save thousands of jobs by getting people to work less, so they get paid less, and businesses stay afloat.

At the most it saved only about one hundred jobs.

But now John Key has come up with another wizard idea: you can sell your 4th week of annual leave.

So he thinks the solution is to get people to work for longer - and that will save the economy?

Which is it? A 9-day fortnight and work less - or sell your holidays and work more?

And what a magicians slight of hand to suggest that you have the choice to ‘sell’ your annual leave.

In my book, it’s just working for an extra week and getting paid for it! Nothing new about that.

John Key says you can even sell your sick leave and your public holidays.

Why not take Christmas day tomorrow - then decide to sell it - and work anyway?

Then we had the cycle way. That was meant to create jobs. Tourist industries were meant to pop up all along the cycle way.

All we’ve seen so far is pictures of John Key on a bike - smiling as always.

It’ll take more than a push bike and cycle way to grow New Zealand.

Mining is now meant to save the New Zealand economy.

What happened to that? Another flip-flop because this smiling Prime Minister doesn’t want to be unpopular.

So what’s the next big idea?

There isn’t one.

If John Key and his government were serious about growing the economy, they wouldn’t just pay lip service to the the farming sector.

The truth is - Agriculture makes up 43% of New Zealand’s exports, compared to tourism which makes up 17%.

And yet John Key didn’t mention farming in 2008 in the post-election speech from the throne.

Didn’t mention it in 2009 in his speech in parliament at the beginning of the year.

Nothing wrong with supporting tourism. But there is something wrong with ignoring farming.

If he thinks he can grow the New Zealand economy while ignoring the farming sector and building cycle ways - he’s dreaming.
What kind of mickey mouse economics smashes the Fast Forward Fund for research into the primary sector, and cancels the tax credit for businesses in favour of a cycle way?
That was a loss of over $2 and half billion for the productive, export earning sectors of the New Zealand economy.
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see that the farming sector belongs at the centre of any government’s economic strategy.
Previous governments had demoted it to a ‘sunset industry’.
John Key’s government is doing the same.
Instead of playing wizard tricks on the people of New Zealand, John Key needs to get serious.
New Zealand could be a global centre for food production; for IT and for good ideas that add value to what we already do well - grow and make food.
This government has no plans to grow the economy. No plans to create jobs.
Like the Wizard of Oz - Mr Key is hiding behind bright lights and all the tricks of the trade.
But New Zealanders are starting to see that there are no more tricks in the bag. The Wizard has no clothes

Kiwibank will get downgraded if sold, says credit rating agency

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-05-27T18:13:28+12:00

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.

Nats back to weasel words on Kiwibank

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-06-09T18:11:41+12:00

“Is Steven Joyce planning a leadership coup? Only days after John Key backed down and clarified that Kiwibank will never be sold while he’s Prime Minister, Steven Joyce announced this morning that if he’s going to sell it, he’ll tell you in time for the next election,” says Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.

“Who’s he going to tell? John Key or the country?”

John Key was forced to rule out a sale of Kiwibank on Friday after more than a week of confusion following finance minister Bill English’s post-budget comments that Kiwibank could be up for sale in time for the next election.

Steven Joyce went head to head with Labour’s Darren Hughes on Newstalk ZB’s Mike Hoskings breakfast show this morning.

When asked about Kiwibank he said that from his point of view “we’ve said we won’t change anything, and if we did we’d go to the country.”

“That might be his point of view, but it contradicts John Key’s latest point of view. Although if you take Mr Key’s ‘point of view’ from five days ago, then you’d have agreement between Mr Joyce’s point of view today and Mr Key’s point then. Of course Bill English has his own point of view. He wants to sell. Then there’s National MP Nathan Guy’s point of view - he signed a pledge that he would never support or initiate the sale of Kiwibank.”

“That’s a lot of points of view. Who should we be listening to now?” says Jim Anderton.

“One thing is crystal clear. The National party are not united on this issue. The ‘rat-pack’ want to sell, doesn’t matter what John Key says,” says Jim Anderton.

Steven Joyce also said when pushed further about Kiwibank “the reality is that nothing’s changed; we haven’t even asked for any work to be done, but if we do it’ll be in time for the next election.”

“Who can honestly believe John Key’s promise never to sell Kiwibank now?” says Jim Anderton.

Money still not flowing out of R&D fund

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-05-27T18:00:50+12:00

“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.

Maori Commercial Aquaculture Bill

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-03-25T17:58:44+13:00

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.

Progressive Party Update

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-06-27T15:08:22+12:00

The Progressive Party has been re-registered as a political party with the Electoral Commission after proving that it has a minimum of five hundred paying members.

Party activists and members continue to work closely with the Labour Party, both on the ground and in parliament.

“We remain focused on key policy issues like affordable dental health care for all New Zealanders, and on challenging the government not to sell Kiwibank,” says Jim Anderton.

The Party will continue to support its members who are seeking election both at the up-coming local body elections and the general election next year.

Now NZ Post on the block

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-06-08T16:28:32+12:00

Desperation to sell something or anything is the only way to explain the prime ministers’ declaration that Kiwibank won’t be sold but NZ Post might be, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.

“The Prime Minister is now once again saying Kiwibank won’t be sold while he is leader.
He has made that declaration before and then forgotten about it, so there is every reason to suspect he will go back on his word again. Plainly, his political commitments mean little to the prime minister.

“In making his statement about Kiwibank today, Mr Key announced on radio that it is ‘technically’ or ‘theoretically’ possible that NZ Post will be sold.

“That’s like being technically or theoretically pregnant. Either National is going to sell NZ Post or it isn’t.

“Mr Key is using sneaky language. He should simply say National won’t sell NZ Post. It does a good job in pubic ownership.

“Rural communities in particular will lose their services or they will cost more if John Key sells NZ Post.”

Jim Anderton is also asking whether the Reserve Bank and Treasury will correct the PM’s statement that Kiwibank has an implicit government guarantee.

“When I made a statement that politics would mean a government is unlikely to allow Kiwibank to fail, the Reserve Bank issued a statement clarifying that there is no government guarantee.

“The watchdog is applying a different standard to the prime minister by refusing to make the same clarification today,” Jim Anderton said.

Key Should Stop Playing Personal Politics And Come Clean On Kiwibank

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-06-04T03:40:15+12:00

If National wasn't going to sell Kiwibank they would have said so by
now, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.

"The Government has been fudging assets sales for two weeks. If they
weren't going to sell Kiwibank, they would have said so by now and made
the story go away.

"Instead of coming clean on Kiwibank, the prime minister is now
resorting to personal abuse. For example, "Who cares what Jim Anderton
says?"

"First John Key indicated his promise before the election not to sell
Kiwibank 'ever' was worthless. Then he started playing silly semantic
games. Now he has reduced himself to the kind of petty personal
point-scoring games he claimed he would stand aside from in politics.

"John Key is behaving just like the kind of politician he said he would
never become.

"If he wants to sell Kiwibank, he should be straight with New
Zealanders. He should make his case for the sale on its merits, not on
petty personal politicking," Jim Anderton said.

Japan PM resigns over broken promise - why not Key?

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-06-03T15:34:35+12:00

“The Japanese Prime Minister has just resigned over a broken pre-election campaign promise. But clearly breaking promises is a qualification for government in John Key’s world,” says Jim Anderton MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader.

“Perhaps John Key is confusing the work ethics that drive the shady world of international speculation, with the moral demands of being in government.

“If you’re Prime Minister you say what you mean and keep your promises. That’s part of the job. If you’re not up to that, you resign. If it’s good enough for the Japanese Prime Minister, why not Mr Key?”

Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama resigned yesterday after eight months in office after a broken campaign promise made before he was elected, to move a United States Marine base off the southern island of Okinawa.

“John Key has broken his promise not to sell Kiwibank ‘at any time in the future’ - ever. He’s now done a U-turn and says the promise not to sell - ever - is only good for the first term of his government.

“That means Kiwibank is only safe for another 12-18 months. Then the ‘for sale’ sign goes up.”

“John Key made a pledge to resign if he broke his promise not to touch superannuation.”

“When is a John Key promise not a promise? When it’s a promise not to put up GST or sell Kiwibank. This is the kind of political cynicism which has changed governments and electoral systems in New Zealand and will do so again.

“John Key should give New Zealanders a list of all the promises he’s made. Tell people now which ones he intends to keep, and which promises he intends to break,” says Jim Anderton.

Nats cynical games over Kiwibank sale

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-06-03T15:33:05+12:00

“John Key is guilty of the worst kind of cynical politics. He changes his mind depending on where the votes are before the election, then reverts back to his original position once in government,” says Jim Anderton MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader.

He did this with his broken promises not to sell Kiwibank. In 2008, MPs like Nathan Guy won marginal seats like Otaki by signing a pledge that the National Party would not sell Kiwibank,”

“On August 7 2008 before the election, John Key refused to sign a pledge not to sell Kiwibank. Then when he could see how unpopular that was, he changed his mind and promised multiple times not to sell Kiwibank - ever - if he was elected.

“The National party needed all the votes it could get in the marginal seats, like Otaki.

“That is presumably why Cabinet Minister and National Party MP Nathan Guy did sign the pledge on behalf of the National Party not to initiate a sale of Kiwibank, and he did it in front of hundreds of local people.

“I wonder how those people feel now?”

After he signed the pledge, Nathan Guy won the Otaki seat with a majority of 1354.

“Assuming half those people had decided not to vote for National once they knew that asset sales were going to be back on the agenda (less than 700 votes), those votes probably would have gone to the Labour candidate Darren Hughes. Mr Guy would then not have won that seat.

“John Key’s policy on asset sales changed during the election, and it helped get his government elected. Now the truth is coming out. John Key will sell Kiwibank if he wins another term in government.

“‘Ever - is a short word and a short time in John Key’s world.”

“This is the kind of cynical politics that brings governments down,” says Jim Anderton.

John Key promised not to sell Kiwibank 'ever'

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-06-02T16:17:09+12:00

John Key made a clear undertaking before the last general election, that there would never be a sale of Kiwibank, even if National won a further term in government, says Jim Anderton MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader.

“Since the Budget, the government has said its promise not to sell Kiwibank was only good for its first term. But on several occasions before the election, John Key personally insisted that the promise was permanent.

The Dominion Post after TV3 leaders debate 4 November 2008
John Key answers readers’ questions in The Dominion Post 22 October 2008:
“You made a statement on television that your government if elected will not sell Kiwibank in its first term of office. Does that mean that you do intend selling Kiwibank eventually?” (Carol Aldridge, Porirua)
‘I am ruling out selling Kiwibank at any point in the future.’ John Key

The Dominion Post 4 November 2008, following TV3 leaders' debate – 5 days before the election:
“Mr Key said he would not sell Kiwibank - and when asked if that meant ‘ever’ responded: ‘No, I’ve ruled it out’.”

The Press 4 November 2008
“John Key ruled out National selling Kiwibank at any stage ‘never....we’ve ruled it out.’”

Jim Anderton says: “John Key’s current position on Kiwibank is a broken promise. If he had used the weasel words he is now using in answer to these questions during the election campaign, the issue would have turned into a major campaign fiasco for National. He said one thing to get elected and now he is saying something else. That is flat out untrustworthy.

“Shares in Kiwibank should not be floated because it’s doing a great job. It’s making money, and because we own it, those profits go straight back into the New Zealand economy. John Key needs to come clean and tell us - did he mislead the electorate or is this another policy U-turn?” says Jim Anderton.

Telecom share decline is a lesson for privatising government

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-05-25T15:50:48+12:00

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."

National's threat to sell Kiwibank

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-05-21T16:18:14+12:00

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.”

Canterbury people told to shut up and pay up

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-05-21T12:15:47+12:00

“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's Budget 2010 speech

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-05-20T16:49:55+12:00

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!

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-05-20T16:44:49+12:00

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.

Odyssey House 25th Anniversary

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-05-07T12:29:44+12:00

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.

How does cutting top tax rate cut make super more affordable?

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-05-04T16:32:18+12:00

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.

Tobacco Excise bill

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-05-04T10:16:19+12:00

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.

Deal with alcohol ads to deal with binge drinking culture

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-04-27T17:59:45+12:00

The National government must listen to New Zealanders and raise the age at which young people can legally buy alcohol from 18 to 20. But more needs to be done to restrict alcohol advertising, says Jim Anderton MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader.

He was responding to the release of the Law Commission’s report on liquor law changes. The report recommends a package of policies designed to reduce criminal offending and
the harm caused by alcohol. These include, increasing the purchasing age, increasing the price of alcohol, and cutting back the hours licensed premises are open.

The report recognises that alcohol misuse is a major contributor to violent offending.

“The police know this; 60 percent of people arrested by the police were under the influence of alcohol when they committed their crime. 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.

“We have a problem with alcohol abuse in this country. People with responsible drinking habits are not the target. The culture of tolerating heavy drinking is. We need law changes to alter that. Anyone who thinks we can change abusive behaviour without that is dreaming.”

“But we also need a strong position on regulating the marketing and advertising of alcohol. Reducing alcohol advertising and sponsorship of sports games for example, would go a long way towards changing people’s attitudes to alcohol.

“It’s obscene that you can go to an under 6s ripper rugby game on a Saturday, and see five year olds running around with beer ads all over the flags and the goal posts.

“Here’s what the alcohol industry won’t tell you; they make their profits out of heavy drinkers. So targeting kids as young as five to associate alcohol with sports is part of developing heavy drinkers for the future.

“Former Progessive MP Matt Robson’s private members bill called for alcohol advertising on TV to be moved from 8.30pm to 10pm. I’d like to see alcohol sponsorship of sports games banned. We did it for smoking. You don’t have Benson & Hedges sponsoring tennis games anymore. We should do the same for alcohol sponsorships,” says Jim Anderton.

Government favours alcohol industry

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-04-22T17:26:13+12:00

Minister responsible for the government’s alcohol policy, Peter Dunne today dismissed Professor Doug Sellman, an addiction specialist, and 450 senior doctors and nurses as a group of people who don’t like a drink of wine at a wedding.

“These people are campaigning to stop the harm and violence that erupts as a result of alcohol abuse, particularly the harm done to young New Zealanders,” Jim Anderton said.

“They are not campaigning to stop people enjoying a glass of wine at a wedding, and to suggest that shows how ill-equipped Peter Dunne is to be a minister anywhere near alcohol regulation.

“Although Peter Dunne claims to know what people like Professor Sellman thinks, Mr Dunne could not name the 5+ Solutions that Mr Sellman and Alcohol Action are proposing.

“For the record Mr Dunne, the 5+ Solutions are as follows: Raise the alcohol price, Raise the purchase age, Reduce availability, Reduce marketing and advertising and Increase drink driving counter measures. Plus increase treatment opportunities.

“Mr Dunne could also not name the 10 things that the alcohol industry won’t tell you about alcohol. They are, as follows:

Alcohol is a highly intoxicating drug which is fairly easy to overdose on
Alcohol can cause brain damage
Alcohol causes aggression
Alcohol is fattening in social drinkers
Alcohol can cause cancer
Alcohol cardio-protection has been talked up
The alcohol industry actively markets alcohol to young people
Low risk drinking means drinking low amounts of alcohol
A lot of the alcohol industry’s profit comes from heavy drinking
There is a solution to the national alcohol crisis: ‘The 5+ Solution’.

“Mr Dunne misled the House today in claiming to have met with 47 alcohol groups not associated with the alcohol industry. He also provided TV3 with a list of these meetings. Eugene Bingham, producer of TV3’s 60 Minutes has analysed each meeting on his blog.

“Most of these meetings were nothing to do with alcohol regulation.

“23 were with Ministry of Health officials or ALAC – both of whom report to him – three were with the Law Commission, two were with the police. Four meetings were with other official groups of various types: the UN Office of Drugs and Crime, the WHO, a ministerial council on drug strategies in Brisbane, and the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. Three were speeches he gave at conferences.

“That leaves five meetings. TV3 phoned the Downtown Community Ministry who Mr Dunne met with on December 2. They said the meeting was not specifically about alcohol.

“He met with the NGO Provider Forum on October 19. The agenda for that meeting, on the Ministry of Health’s website, shows that Mr Dunne spoke on the topic of ‘NGO Challenges and Opportunities for Changing Times’.

“He met with the Life Education Trust on May 5, but not specifically about alcohol.

“That leaves two meetings: one with the Salvation Army, which told TV3 they had indeed talked to the minister about alcohol issues, specifically taxation of liquor; and one with respected Scottish expert Dr Peter Rice, brought to New Zealand by ALAC for its conference last year.

“He did have some meetings with groups other than the alcohol industry. But not 47, and these meetings cannot be described a lobbying,” says Jim Anderton.

Support for changes to alcohol law

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-04-22T17:24:52+12:00

If the reports are accurate, Jim Anderton calls on the government to act on the leaked Law Commission’s recommendations on alcohol controls, which appear to include a call to increase the drinking age to twenty and restrict the availability of alcohol.

“However I’m not hopeful that with a Minister like Peter Dunne responsible for alcohol the government will have the guts to do anything this brave,” says Jim Anderton.

“This is a man who refused to meet with Doug Sellman who represents 450 senior doctors and nurses across New Zealand calling for changes to the law. But he was prepared to meet on numerous occasions with representatives of the alcohol industry.

“He said he didn’t meet with Mr Sellman or his colleagues because he ‘knows what they think.’

“So he had to meet with the alcohol industry on numerous occasions to understand what they thought?”

“A few weeks ago new figures showed that violent offending was up by nine per cent last year - an increase of twenty thousand more victims of crime under John Key's National Government.

“The police know, and so do the doctors and nurses patching people up, that alcohol abuse is a major cause of that increase in violent crime. Three out of five people who are arrested are under the influence of alcohol at the time they commit the offence for which they are arrested. The problem is getting worse every year, not better, and that is largely because alcohol is becoming more available.”

Leaked recommendations from the Law Commission, published by KiwiBlog (an on-line blog) appear to call for a 50 percent increase in the excise tax on alcohol; an increase from eighteen to twenty in the purchasing age for alcohol; banning the sale of liquor at off licences after 10pm; forcing bars and nightclubs to refuse to allow people to enter after 2am; and a nationwide closing time of 4am.

“The spotlight is on the government now to see if they will have the courage to act,” says Jim Anderton.

UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-04-21T15:22:57+12:00

Jim Anderton’s speech in parliament on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

We are told that there was standing ovation for Pita Sharples’ speech from members of the United Nations Permanent Forum of Indigenous issues. I wonder whether the following countries stood up, and whether Pita Sharples noticed: Zimbabwe, Ethopia, Fiji, Iran, Israel, Burma, Rwanda and Somalia.

We do not need in this country any lessons from countries like those on how to treat indigenous peoples. We need no lessons whatsoever.

It is egregious for the Prime Minister and others to crawl to the likes of that forum with that membership and to tell us things will change. Nothing will change. This is just an idle piece of writing that means nothing whatsoever.

New Zealand has done more for the indigenous people of this country than all of those countries have put together twice over. We did not need any lessons from the united Nations Permanent Forum of indigenous Issues to do that.

New Zealand is honoured around the world for the way in which it introduced Waitangi Tribunal resolutions, and the way in which we have settled grievances with indigenous people of this country. For us to seek the solace of countries on that list and many more makes me ashamed of the Parliament of this country.

It makes me ashamed that we would debate with some kind of glee the fact that we received a standing ovation from countries like that at the UN.

Let me say that New Zealand is already widely acknowledged as a world leader in recognising such rights and it has a longstanding process through the Waitangi Tribunal for putting that recognition into practical effect to the very real advantage of righting past injustices of the Maori indigenous people of this country.

The UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, on the other hand, is simply an expression of pious hopes without any necessary practical effect whatsoever.

It has no practical effect; it is not binding. In fact, Mr Power, the Minister of Justice, told Parliament that the Government is considering the different meanings of the aspirational text. Well, which meaning did the government sign up to/ Did it not know? Has the Government read it? Does it know what it means?

The answer to all those questions is No. It has nothing to do with it. It is to do with the deal between National and the Maori Party to get the Maori Party to run alongside the Government.

It is idle for the Maori Party to claim some kind of great triumph for getting the countries I mentioned earlier to stand up. The Maori Party should be ashamed of itself for thinking that this declaration is some kind of triumph. It is part of the agony that we experience as we watch and see this take place.

Affordable dental care within reach for all Kiwis

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-04-23T20:21:35+12:00

Affordable dental care within reach for all Kiwis

For less than $1 billion, dental care could be brought into the public health system so that every New Zealand, no matter what their age, had access to affordable care, says Jim Anderton MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader.

“That includes what we already spend on free dental care for under 18 year olds (about $120 million); plus the millions we spend on treating severe cases when people turn up in hospital emergency rooms,” Jim Anderton said today.

Jim Anderton outlined his proposals for subsidised dental care to the annual conference of the New Zealand School and Community Oral Health Services Society. This year marks 90 years since the School Dental Service was established, the first of its kind in the world.

“Fifty percent of New Zealanders do not visit the dentist regularly, and many of them turn up at emergency wards. You can see the queues at hospitals across New Zealand - just like a third world country,” says Jim Anderton.

“The last Labour Progressive government extended free dental care to all under 18s so that adolescents who were not at school or enrolled at a dentist, and therefore not covered, can now get free care.

“Former Labour Minister of Health, Annette King introduced one hundred mobile dental clinics to service schools, and the first ever dedicated Community Oral Health Services to target adolescents. Members of the New Zealand School and Community Oral Health Services Society are in the process of rolling out these changes.

“I believe we could roll out a subsidised dental system in stages, in the same way we introduced affordable GP visits while in government. We’ve already targeted the under 18s. Other vulnerable groups include retired New Zealanders and pregnant mothers.

“Unfortunately under this National government there isn’t the political will to do anything about dental care. Tony Ryall has removed oral health completely, as a health target.”

“Funding required for a subsidised system could be raised either through income tax, or by a small ACC type earner’s levy, in return for a lifetime of free or affordable dental treatment. Research into options continues, in consultation with the dental industry,” Jim Anderton said.

The State of the Nation's teeth

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-04-23T20:18:32+12:00

The State of the Nation's teeth 90 years on - How are we doing?

Jim Anderton’s speech at the New Zealand School and Community Oral Health Services Society Conference

Thank you for inviting me tonight. This is probably the only time I’ll get a chance to give a speech in a brewery.

Some of you may be aware I am part of a national campaign to increase the legal drinking age and get rid of alcohol advertising. The alcohol industry doesn’t like that idea much.
There’s even a radio ad at the moment which advertises the latest party pills, and it starts by saying ‘Don’t let Uncle Jim ruin the party’!

So we make a fine team. I’m taking away their drugs and alcohol, and you’re taking away their sweets, lollies and sugary drinks!

But I don’t want to sound too negative tonight. Especially as we all have a reputation as reasonably serious people. Dentists and dental therapists always seem to get a bad rap.

Up till the 1980s, Kiwi kids used to tell their parents, ‘We’re off to the murder house today.’
They meant they were off for a check up. A dental nurse and a bus would arrive outside the primary school to carry the kids off to the murder house.

The parents themselves were raised on films where the dentist was often evil and probably insane; or otherwise a bumbling fool played by one of the Three Stooges or Groucho Marx.

There is a serous side to tonight though. Each of you here knows that the lack of affordable dental health care is a very grave problem in New Zealand.

Fifty per cent of New Zealanders do not receive regular dental care. Some even end up in a hospital emergency department where they get their teeth removed. There are queues of people at hospitals across New Zealand from 5am in the morning, waiting for pain relief or extraction - just like a third world country.

It’s a shock that there isn’t more outrage about this. A high level of untreated decay is a classic sign of poverty. Perhaps if people knew you could die from dental decay there would be more political action. We’ll know more about who is or isn’t seeing the dentist later this year when the results of a nationwide survey of the nation’s teeth are released.

This is the first time in twenty years that we’ve done a survey like this. It’s long overdue.
There’s some good news though; the last Labour and Progressive government extended free dental care to all kids under 18 years.

Tonight I’d like to pay tribute to my colleague, the former Minister of Health - and former school dental nurse - Annette King. She extended the under 18’s scheme to cover kids who were not at school or enrolled at a dentist. Before that, these kids fell through the cracks and didn’t qualify for free dental care.

She restored the School Dental Service which was in danger of disappearing all together after the previous National government had closed all the training schools. The number of therapists had dropped from 1000 in 1990 to a mere 400 by 1999.

Annette also made dental therapists a stand alone profession for the first time. That meant you were recognised for your skills, and you could practice on adults. Which means that if we did have a government which wanted to roll out affordable care beyond 18 year olds, we would have the capacity to do it.

The new dedicated Community Oral Health Services are targeting teenagers in the community. So are the hundred mobile clinics being introduced across the country over the next three years to service schools.

I’m looking forward to visiting the first of the purpose built community centre’s in Gisborne in the coming weeks.

I know you have worked hard to roll out this new scheme. I’d like to thank all of you here (and those who are absent) for your huge efforts in making Annette King’s policy decision in parliament a reality.

Reconfiguring child and adolescent oral health services has not been easy. It’s involved Chief Dental Officers and their teams, and people like Dr Robin Whyman who is not here tonight, and Dr Tim Mackay who is.

It’s involved dental therapists, managers, clinicians and support staff across the country.
We made history when New Zealand was the first country in the world to establish the School Dental Service, 90 years ago.

You are making history again.

My advice from the Ministry of Health this week is that although it’s early days to evaluate the success of the new scheme, you will achieve your target of reaching 60% of all eligible adolescents across New Zealand in the first year or so. That’s great news and we’ll keep monitoring progress.

90 years ago
It’s an historic time; this year marks the 90th anniversary since the School Dental Service was set up. I have a direct link in my office to that day 90 years ago when the idea for the school service began.
One of my research staff, David Cuthbert, who has worked for many hours on our dental policy, is related to the man who played a pivotal role in setting up the School Dental Service.

His great uncle was a man called John Llewellyn Saunders - ‘Llew’ to his family. I’m sure it won’t surprise you to hear that I don’t like smoking. But in the case of Llew I have to admit that smoking saved his life - and helped create the School Dental Service.

Like many men of his generation he went off to war in 1914-15. He was full of dreams for a fully funded dental service in New Zealand, and determined to survive the war so he could come back and make it happen.

He ended up at Gallipoli and the Western Front, which didn’t bode well for his future or the future of our community dental health services. He got hit by a sniper and thought he had been seriously injured. But the bullet had hit the cigarette tin in his chest pocket. He came back to New Zealand more determined than ever to introduce a fully funded state dental service. His great nephew in my office tells me the family still has that dented cigarette tin.

Llew had been shocked by the appalling state of dental health revealed by the wartime inspection of army recruits. He had a sense of urgency, a determination to make a difference that wouldn’t be out of place today. But he’d be encouraged to see people like you working in schools and the community delivering a free and affordable service to young New Zealanders.

At the time that Llew and his colleagues were designing the first School Dental Service, there was of course a private system of dentistry which was going from strength to strength.

Llew was like the 'Indiana Jones' of dentistry; He had a brave, can-do attitude. He was doing god's work and getting shot at. Those of you here tonight have picked up the fight where Llew left off. He succeeded in getting the first School Dental Service up and running. He believed a service made up of trained women could provide a much needed dental service to New Zealand children. He helped to create a school of dentistry to improve the quality of care.

And after his war time experience, he was part of setting up the New Zealand Dental Corps which looked after the teeth of soldiers serving overseas. Now we have to pick up the baton.

90 years on, who’s not getting dental care?

In the last election I argued for the introduction of affordable dental care for all New Zealanders - adults included.

I have been encouraged by the support I’ve received, and I have no doubt that we can achieve Llew’s dream of a fully developed state system of some kind.

The New Zealand Dental Association has agreed to look at the research from my office. We have costed various models for a subsidised system.

The Progressive Party is developing practical policies, and we’re doing it in consultation with dentists, dental therapists and hygienists. I’ve had many letters and calls, in support of this campaign.

Grey Power branches across the country have been in touch; The New Zealand Dental Therapists’ Association, the Nurses Organisation and many other organisations and individuals have also shown their support. But there are considerable hurdles to overcome.

The most vulnerable people in our society are unfortunately still the under 18s.

As Health Minister in 2008, Labour’s David Cunliffe issued a list a ten health targets. 'Improving oral health' was the second target.

When Tony Ryall became Health Minister he issued 'a slimmed down set of health targets’ - from ten to six. Oral health was not one of them

I’m realistic about what it will take to introduce an affordable public dental system for everyone. It will have to be done in stages; in the same way we introduced affordable GP visits, starting with the youngest followed by the oldest.

It was right to focus on 0-18 year olds first. Now we have to identify all vulnerable groups and target them. Once these kids leave your care, they are at risk. From the age of 18 many of these young adults will probably never go to the dentist. Some of them don’t see the dentist again for ten to twenty years.

When they do finally turn up at the dentists, the problems can be so big it’s almost impossible and too costly to treat them. Cost is a significant barrier. That’s one of the first things we have to fix. But we also have to incentivise them to go to the dentist, and get them used to looking after their own teeth. That will involve an education program together with a public campaign which is long overdue.

Another vulnerable group is pregnant women. Not only are their teeth at risk during pregnancy, but as mothers they will set habits for dental care at home with their children.

That’s why affordable treatment for the adult population is so important.

I’ve never understood why pregnant women get free GP visits during their pregnancy, but not free visits to the dentist.

The problems start before kids get to see therapists like you. They start between the ages of 0-5. Many parents do not know that their children’s teeth are forming before they are born. Although the 0-5 age group is entitled to free dental care, some new mothers are not aware of this.

The dangers of sugary fruit juices, sweetened milk or fizzy drinks are not sufficiently spelt out to new parents. I’m encouraged to see that at least Plunket and other early child support services will be doing more in the future to include information on dental care and the dangers of sugary drinks.

This was an initiative set up by the New Zealand Dental Association, Plunket and Colgate.
The next big problem we have is New Zealanders in retirement.

It’s not fair, but it’s a fact of life, that as you get older, the care of your teeth and gums becomes a bigger problem. In my parent’s day, teeth were extracted and false teeth provided, often as a 21st birthday present!

The baby boomer generation will go into old age with their own teeth, often heavily filled and a number of them missing.

I heard of a couple of old friends the other day. One was in his 90s and close to death. The friend of the dying man, who’d recently, spent all his life’s savings on his teeth, asked his friend:
“Will you do me a favour? Will you tell me if they have free dental care in heaven?”
The dying man replies: “You’re my best friend. I’ll do this for you.”
And then he dies. Next day the friend hears a ghostly voice and realises it’s his old friend.
“I’ve got good news and bad news,” says the ghost. “The good news is that there’s free dental care for everyone in heaven.”
“The bad news is - you’re booked in on Wednesday.”

Most retired New Zealanders (75%) live on their superannuation income alone. People in retirement homes are particularly vulnerable. They often don’t get the treatment they need.

I’m pleased to hear that the Dentist’s Association is about to roll out training for rest home workers on how to better manage dental care in rest homes.

What are the options for affordable dental care?

I believe that affordable dental care for everyone is achievable. Just like I believed that we could have our own New Zealand owned bank - Kiwibank - when everyone told me it couldn’t be done.

Llew’s dream - 90 years ago - of affordable or free care for everyone is closer today than it first appears.

I would like to see dental care brought into New Zealand’s general health system. Our research tell us that it would cost less than $1 billion to finance basic dental care for the whole population. That includes the money we already spend on free visits for under 18 year olds. And it includes the cost of those who end up in emergency departments.
We could raise this money either through income tax, or through a small ACC type earner’s levy in return for a life time of free or affordable dental treatment.

We’ll actually save money by promoting prevention and helping new parents introduce good habits for their children. We would save money by putting fluoride in the water in more places across New Zealand. I know this continues to be controversial, and you have been discussing this at your conference.

The anti-fluoride lobby should let the facts get in the way of their prejudice. On average the addition of fluoride in drinking water reduces tooth decay in children by at least 30% and strengthens the teeth of adults.

We could be on the brink of achieving affordable dental care. It’s possible, it’s affordable and it’s a social tragedy that half our population doesn’t get the dental care they need.
What we don’t have at the moment is the political will to make it happen.

But when you look back at the milestones in dental care over the last 90 years, it hasn’t been politicians who have led the call for affordable care. It’s been people like you.

Llew had to personally lobby Peter Fraser, Minister of Health in the first Labour government to expand the School Dental Service to cover teenagers.

Without people like Llew however, there wouldn’t be any school or community dental service at all. Without people like you, an ex-dental nurse by the name of Annette King wouldn’t have been able to win the argument in parliament to extend free dental care to all under 18 year olds.

She wouldn’t have been able to bring back the training of dental therapists, central to Llew’s dream of free dental care for children.

The next milestone is up to you. You have to go out there and create the political will to make affordable care a reality for all New Zealanders. We must pool our knowledge and our efforts to make a final push.

That’s the only way we will realise Llew’s dream, 90 years ago, of an affordable, high quality dental care system within the reach of every New Zealander.

Beer in a can recipe for trouble

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-04-02T16:27:50+13:00

The police don’t want it; rugby fans don’t need it; and I don’t like it. Selling beer in cans at the Rugby World Cup could damage our international reputation. It is not worth the risk,” Jim Anderton said.

Rugby World Cup minister, Murray McCully has announced that spectators at world cup games will be able to drink beer from cans.

“All it would take is for a few intoxicated fans to use cans as missiles and chuck them at players in front of a world-wide television audience of over 500 million people. Our international reputation would be tarnished for years.

“This is our moment in the world spotlight. We won’t get another chance like this for decades. Murray McCully thinks it is not worth the cost of putting a system in our stadiums so that we can serve beer in plastic cups.

“It might cost $1 million to install that system at Eden Park but that is money well spent if it can protect our reputation overseas. The loss to New Zealand if a negative incident happens could be many more times that.

“The only people who benefit from cans at games is Heineken. They get their branding on every can. They wouldn’t if beer was served in plastic cups.

“The National government is prioritising the business needs of a beer company over New Zealand’s image as a good place to visit and do business. If a negative incident happens and gets transmitted across the world via YouTube and twitter in a matter of minutes, it will be on Murray McCully’s head,” says Jim Anderton.

Rugby song sounds like beer ad from the 1990s

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-04-02T16:26:41+13:00

“I would like to nominate Gary McCormick for New Zealand’s poet laureate because of his determination to campaign against the Rugby World Cup’s choice of theme song – an English song that sounds like an old beer ad from the 1990s,” says Jim Anderton.

“Prime Minister, John Key said today that he did not think it was ‘a missed opportunity to have a home grown song ring around the world’. So are we to understand that he approves of the use of an old English song, decades old?

“Of course it is a missed opportunity. Every other country would have picked a song which represented their own identity. It’s a chance to showcase our best musicians and our unique culture.

“We can’t blame Australia for promoting our musicians like Crowded House as their own, when we don’t even promote our own talent.”

The Rugby World Cup has chosen ‘Right Here, Right Now’ as the official theme song. It is a 1990 song originally recorded by UK band, Jesus Jones. The latest version has been covered by the Kiwi band, The Feelers.

“This is classic culture-cringe. We look like a country of covers bands. The truth is we have some wonderful home-grown artists and songs that have made it to the top of the charts internationally. Why not draw on this talent?

“Surely we could do better? It is not too late. I’d like to see another song. Why not a competition? That’s what we did when we hosted the commonwealth Games in 1974.

“In the meantime, I’ll be joining Gary McCormick and calling for a Kiwi song,” says Jim Anderton.

Government cancels democracy in Canterbury

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-03-30T16:06:12+13:00

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.

ACC’s unlawful stealth policy change

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-03-30T16:30:52+13:00

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.

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,

Changing ACC policy by stealth

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-03-29T08:01:08+13:00

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.

Collective responsibility does not require Turia to vote for more Maori unemployment

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-03-30T14:59:32+13:00

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.

Progressives contribute to heart surgery unit in Zambia

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-03-30T15:58:06+13:00

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

Save 198 Youth Health Centre

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-03-18T10:14:18+13:00

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.

Mental health disaster unfolding in Canterbury DHB

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-03-18T10:08:02+13:00

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.”

Financial review Debate - Appropriations Bill - Agriculture

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-03-18T10:03:06+13:00

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.

Speech to the Alcohol Causes Violence conference

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-03-23T14:00:07+13:00

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.

Anti-science government axes jobs

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-03-16T13:29:05+13:00

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.

FAI Money should never have been given a Crown guarantee

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-03-11T14:00:32+13:00

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.

Kiwis didn’t want Telecom privatised, says ex CEO

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-03-05T15:47:34+13:00

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.

Save men’s help-line

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-03-04T15:19:05+13:00

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.

ACC relies on out-dated methods to test injuries

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-02-25T15:09:03+13:00

Accident victims who are being turned away by ACC because of fictitious ‘pre-existing conditions’ are in some cases being assessed by non-practicing elderly surgeons who rely on text books dating back to 1934, says MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader, Jim Anderton.

An orthopaedic surgeon has contacted Jim Anderton to express concern that 85% of their patients needing surgery after accidents are being rejected on below-average assessments by a company contracted and paid by ACC to test claims.

“This seems a clear conflict of interest.

“A specialist surgeon currently practicing, and using the latest equipment and clinical research decides that a plumber who has fallen at work needs shoulder surgery as a result of the accident. Then retired surgeons, who are no longer specialists, probably never used an MIR scan in their working lives, and quoting from a text book which dates back to 1934, reject the claim on behalf of ACC, because of ‘pre-existing’ conditions.”

“The onus of proof had been reversed by ACC and is now on the patient to prove that their injury occurred at the time of their accident, and not ACC’s job to prove that there was a pre-existing condition. And yet there has been no public debate about this.

“It’s happened behind the scenes, and the public have been kept in the dark.”

The surgeon who contacted Mr Anderton’s office recently saw a seventeen year old who plays water polo competitively. The teenager had dislocated her shoulder and needed surgery. But ACC rejected her claim on the basis that the girl was ‘pre-disposed to dislocate her shoulder because she was very flexible.’

“That’s rubbish; it’s like saying someone is ‘pre-disposed to break their arm.’

“The typical patient being rejected is fit and well, and has been involved in occupations like the construction industry up until the time of their injury.”

“There’s no money saved here; specialists predict that up to 50% of these people who don’t get treatment straight away will have marked deterioration as they get older and will require much more expensive surgery later in life,” says Jim Anderton

Fisheries decision shows Fish Act is ‘hopeless’

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-02-23T17:06:37+13:00

A decision that stopped a fishery being closed in 2008 risked judicial extinction of a species of dolphin, Progressive leader and Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.

A High Court judge has today decided a case brought by the fishing industry against Jim Anderton’s decision, as fisheries minister, to close some fisheries to protect rare and endangered species of dolphin.

The fishing industry won an injunction in 2008 against the closure in some parts of the coastline. The judge has taken until now to decide the case.

The injunction meant the fishery remained open in spite of the fact that an acknowledged risk to the species existed from continued fishing.

“Since the injunction was granted I understand at least one more dolphins has been caught. Big fishing companies, through their court action, risked judicial extinction of an entire species of dolphin,” Jim Anderton said.

The High Court today upheld the original decision in the Manukau harbour, West Coast of the South island, Te Waewae Bay and Bluff.

“It’s too easy for self-interested applicants to get an injunction that threatens a species’ survival.

“I couldn’t change the Act to ensure sustainability because of the influence of big fishing money on political parties.

“Two years have gone by while the dolphins were at risk, only for it to turn out that the judge found the original decisions were justified

“A ministerial decision to close the fishery can only be made after substantial scientific evidence is compiled and enormous amounts of evidence and advice weighed. It’s hopeless for a Judge to be able to come in and substitute his decision for the original one. Decisions to close the fishery should only be set aside when the minister’s decision is manifestly unreasonable.

“In 2008 I tried to change the law to ensure the sustainability of our fisheries. Those efforts were thwarted by NZ First, National and the Maori Party. It later emerged that NZ First had taken $9990 secret ‘donations’ from big fishing. I believe the Maori Party and the National party need to disclose whether they have accepted donations from those interests as well.

“The fishing industry’s behaviour is grotesque and selfish. Enormous damage would be done to New Zealand’s exports if a species went extinct on our watch, but those who took the injunction were clearly putting their own interests first,” Jim Anderton said.

Animal Welfare Amendment Bill

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-02-18T20:10:50+13:00

Animal Welfare Amendment Bill
Speech Notes for the House

See Jim Anderton’s news release on this issue. Click here.

In New Zealand we’ve always had a close connection both on a social and economic basis with animals.

Our economic success is based on animal-derived products.

But we are also proud of our ethical approach to the welfare of our animals.

We care about what happens to them, and we get upset when they are mistreated, whether on farms or in homes.

So I welcome this Bill today because it toughens up our ability to protect our animals and makes offenders pay for mistreatment.

But I’m not naive about the issues. Those whose incomes depend on animals can’t afford to be overly sentimental. They and we grow animals to provide food for New Zealanders and the rest of the world.

Starting out in the workforce in the fifties and sixties, I spent enough time in the freezing works of New Zealand to see a few things that would make us cringe today. It made me cringe even then.

But anyone working with animals or simply owning an animal can and should commit to acting humanely. And most people do.

This Bill doesn’t target the overwhelming majority of farmers, the producers and pet owners who work within the animal welfare guidelines. It targets the small minority who wilfully, recklessly or because of psychological impairment, mistreat animals.
It’s not hard to think of recent examples where animals are kept in inhumane conditions:

The sight of starving and neglected animals on our TV screen focuses everyone’s minds.

New Zealand’s niche in the world is that we are pure, clean and environmentally friendly.

In our markets consumers are becoming more and more demanding.

They are asking searching questions about issues like environmental responsibility. And they’re asking about animal health and welfare and the quality standards of our production processes.

The future for New Zealand’s primary exports will be in having the best answer to those questions we can possibly have.

There is no future in trying to compete on price alone against emerging low cost producers. We have to compete by guaranteeing the quality and value of our food production as a whole.

If we don’t meet the expectations of our customers - then we face potentially very damaging risks to our export base.

This Bill will make the Animal Welfare Act work better.

Increasing the penalty from three to five years shows that we take cruelty to animals seriously.

Introducing a new offence of ‘reckless ill-treatment’ of animals, alongside the existing ‘wilful ill-treatment’ will help us capture those who might otherwise not have reached the threshold for ‘wilful ill-treatment.’

But let’s be realistic; there’s no point in increasing the penalty if you don’t have people on the streets and in the fields to investigate the crime!

This government has already cut front-line staff in areas like biosecurity.

When the Hadda Beetle was found in Auckland recently - it wasn’t found by a biosecurity staffer.....It was found by a man walking his dog in an Auckland park!

So how does this government intend to police animal welfare?

MAF have exactly 5 full time staff to do animal investigations - plus 7 contractors.
The SPCA have about 100 staff who investigate animal welfare - on whom the government is heavily dependent to monitor breaches of the Animal Welfare Act - without paying anything towards their costs.

In 2008 I gave as Minister of Agriculture (through MAF) a $300,000 one-off grant – but I recognize it was no-where near enough.

When I was minister we set up with the Fast Forward Fund, which was a partnership between the private sector and government to fund research and development.

We had over $700 million in the bank, ready to fund research projects into areas like this.

For example - how do you measure animal welfare? It’s not always easy. Measuring how an animal ‘feels’ about its environment is awkward, at the very least.
In 2006, the chairman of the UK Farm Animal Welfare Council, Professor Christopher Wathes, came to New Zealand and asked - ‘how do we know whether animal welfare standards are being observed?’

When I was Minister I used to get a huge volume of letters into my office about animal welfare issues. It was clear to me then - and it still is today - that we have to be leaders, not only in animal welfare, but in measuring the standards of animal welfare.

We have to be leaders in the right techniques, as well as in the substantive results, of our measuring.

The Fast Forward Fund could have helped to deepen our research into animal welfare - and therefore improve the market position of our animal-based industries.
How is the National government going to find the right tools to measure animal welfare now?

It got rid of Fast Forward and replaced it with the Primary Growth Partnership which to date has funded precisely NO research projects.

And anyway, it only has $25 million in the kitty this year to do so.

I support this Bill because it’s ethically the right thing to do; but I question how this government intends to investigate the inevitable increase in complaints.

How is it going to equip vets, MAF staff or SPCA investigators to know when an animal is being mistreated?

Without that support, I fear this Bill will end up more as window dressing than providing the substance that a high quality animal welfare system in New Zealand will require.

Kiwibank stays in Kiwi market - and makes a profit

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-02-19T16:08:40+13:00

Kiwibank has made a profit during the worst recession in decades by staying in the New Zealand market and refusing to gamble on overseas currencies like the big Australian banks, says MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton.

“This is a remarkable achievement, worth celebrating.”

Kiwibank announced today that it had made a profit of $23.5 million after tax for the six months ended December 31, 2009.

“It’s succeeded because it gets most of its deposits from, and does most of its lending in the New Zealand market,” says Jim Anderton.

“One of its strongest areas is its support for small and medium sized businesses in New Zealand.”

Kiwibank was the only bank to front up at last year’s Parliamentary Banking Inquiry. The inquiry established that the ‘big four’ Australian owned banks did not pass on all of the cut in the OCR (Official cash Rate) to home owners, credit card holders and businesses in New Zealand.

The inquiry also criticised the Australian owned banks for contributing to our volatile exchange rate. Exporters are particularly hurt by sudden and frequent changes in the exchange rate.

“In contrast to Kiwibank, the Australian banks borrowed a lot of money from overseas to fund their lending in New Zealand. This has a significant effect on our exchange rate by holding it up regardless of the real economic circumstances of New Zealand.

“The export sector, including farmers make up roughly 30% of our GDP - about $40 billion per year. But suffer the most from currency instability.

“I would like to see the government provide more capital funding for Kiwibank in order to promote more competition amongst banks and increase the share of local funding for lending.

“The Australian owned banks don’t have a vested interest in strengthening the New Zealand economy. Kiwibank does. It stayed in the New Zealand market, and today its success is our success too,” says Jim Anderton.

ACC turning people away

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-02-18T15:09:34+13:00

Victims of vicious attacks, a 17 year old girl who had an accident at the gym, and many other accident victims, are being turned away by ACC for having non-existent ‘pre-existing conditions’, says MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader, Jim Anderton.

The Minister indicated in Parliament today that he would be willing to look at this issue if a clear pattern emerges.

“There is a clear pattern. He needs to do something now. My electorate office, and the offices of other MPs in Christchurch are inundated with stories of people who have been turned away by ACC after accidents or attacks,” says Jim Anderton.

“Wayne Direen, one of my constituents, was injured in an unprovoked attack in Christchurch, and sustained multiple injuries.

“Initially ACC paid for his treatment, but when his shoulder failed to come right, his GP referred him to an orthopaedic surgeon who recommended surgery. ACC declined to cover the surgery on the basis that the shoulder injury was a ‘pre-existing condition’ – which is clearly ludicrous.

“He had been a keen martial arts student and a rugby league player before the attack, and clearly did not have a long term shoulder problem - until the night he was attacked,” says Jim Anderton.

“Other cases include a businessman with his own cleaning business who fell at work and hurt his knee. He had no trouble with his knee prior to the accident, but again ACC declined to cover surgery on the grounds that he had a pre-existing medical condition.

“A self-employed electrician broke his elbow at work. ACC covered treatment for the bruising but not the broken bone because the break had caused on-going nerve problems which required surgery. He was forced to sell his wife’s car to pay for the operation.

“There are many more cases like this. Some of these people have contacted Nick Smith Minister for ACC, only to be sent away and told to take their case to the District Court. None of my constituents can afford to take this option, nor should they have to. Nick Smith needs to take responsibility and do something to stop this happening,” says Jim Anderton.

Government needs to resource animal welfare

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-02-18T14:07:40+13:00

Read Jim Anderton’s speech in Parliament on the Animal Welfare Bill. Click here.

“Increasing the penalty for cruelty to animals is the right thing to do, but unless you resource investigations and give staff the right tools to measure animal welfare, it’s just window dressing,” says MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton.

The Animal Welfare Amendment Bill had its first reading in Parliament today.

It will increase the maximum penalty for cruelty to animals from three years to five and introduce the new offence of ‘reckless cruelty’ to capture those offenders not covered under existing legislation.

“There are only five full-time staff at the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry whose job it is to investigate animal cruelty, plus seven contractors. They have to cover the whole country. They are already stretched, and rely heavily on one hundred SPCA volunteers to monitor breaches wherever they occur.

“Unless the National-led government is prepared to increase the number of staff and increase the resources to investigate incidents of cruelty, this Bill will unfortunately end up as little more than window dressing.

“There’s no point in increasing the penalty if you don’t have people on the streets and in the fields to investigate the crime.”

“This government has already cut front-line staff in areas like biosecurity. When the Hadda Beetle was found in Auckland recently - it wasn’t found by a biosecurity staffer. It was found by a man walking his dog in an Auckland park.

“Perhaps that same man can monitor breaches of the Animal Welfare Act while he’s at it.”

“The other problem is how do we measure animal cruelty? It’s not easy to measure how an animal feels unless you have industry tested standards.

“When I was Minister we were keen that the Fast Forward Fund of over $700 million would help to fund research into standards and techniques for measuring animal welfare.

“This would have helped us deepen our research into animal welfare. We have to be leaders in the best techniques, not just the substantive results of our measuring. But the National-led government axed the Fast Forward Fund and replaced it with the Primary Growth Partnership which has yet to fund a single research project.”

Equal pay

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-02-18T13:05:19+13:00

Rally of the NZ Federation of Business and Professional Women for Equal Pay

Jim Anderton with other Opposition MPs and rally organisers at the rally at Parliament on Thursday, 18 February 2010.

The New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women should be proud of itself today.

You continue to keep equal pay for women in the spotlight year after year, and one day I am sure your efforts will be rewarded.

The world is changing all the time.

I see that in 1988, you marked Equal Pay Day with a Red Purse.

Now you’ve progressed to a Red Bag, which is bigger than a purse.

I’d like to think that symbolically, this marks the fact that some progress has been made in closing the pay gap between men and women.

Or perhaps it just means we have a lot more data on inequality and now we need a bag to carry it all around.

I’m proud that in government we introduced paid parental leave, and four weeks paid annual leave,

Raised the minimum wage by over 70% or $200 per week, and

Introduced subsidies for pre-school care so that mothers could re-enter the work force.

But I know that there is more to be done.

I have just done a quick check on Public Service chief executive salaries. The facts bear out that you have a good reason to be here today.

While there are 29 chief executives that are men, there is only six that are women. The male CEOs get an average salary package of between $454,166 to $463,332 – while women CEOs are paid almost to the dollar, $100,000 lower per year.

Equal pay - equity and equality in the workplace - is unfortunately still an issue. So too are conditions and attitudes to women in the workplace.

Paid parental leave has helped. But we can do a lot more to make sure that women don’t get the short straw when it comes to pay.

The Obama administration should be applauded for introducing ground-breaking equal pay legislation in the first few days of taking power.

We have to look at why women end up in lower paid situations, and look at changing not just the pay they get, but also the conditions and the flexibility in the work place.

The recommendations of the Pay and Employment Equity Taskforce should be implemented.

But what did the new Minister of Labour, Kate Wilkinson do as soon as National came to power?

She closed the Pay and Employment Equity Unit because, she said “it had completed its work”.

Clearly pay equity is not a priority for this government.

Eliminating the 12% gender pay gap has been put on the back burner.

But you have proved you’re in for the long haul, and we will keep fighting alongside you for equal pay.

Good wishes for the battle.

National has no plan for the economy

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-02-10T13:13:07+13:00

Jim Anderton’s Speech in Parliament on the Prime Minister’s statement

On Monday 20 October 2008, National leader, John Key told a press conference that morning that if National was elected and did “a half decent job” at growing the economy, then increasing GST would not be necessary”.

Well, presumably it has not even done a half decent job. This is the man that used to taunt the previous Labour-Progressive government about what it said it should do.

John Key, who had been overseas all those years working and shuffling money around, speculating against the New Zealand dollar and all the rest of it, he told us we had to keep our word.

He said if National did a half decent job it would not have to increase GST. So presumably it has done a lousy job, why doesn’t it resign now and go back and have another press conference?

John Key said to the Wall Street Journal: We can use this recession to transform the economy to make us stronger so that when the world starts growing again we can be running faster than other countries we compete with.

Running faster? We are actually crawling backwards. That is what has happened.
Mr Key in opposition used to taunt the previous Labour-Progressive government about Australia.

We were stagnant in terms of our research and development last year – worse still the $2000 million Fast Forward fund was cancelled. The government said it would make a leap forwards, a step change.

We found out about the step change at the Select Committee when I asked how much money has been invested in research, science and technology in the most important agricultural and horticultural sectors of the New Zealand economy.

The answer from MAF’s CEO was zero – nothing.

That would be bad if it was a mistake, but when in the House I asked David Carter, the Minister of Agriculture, why the Government had made zero investment in agriculture and horticulture, where we earn 65 percent of our overseas exchange, he said it was part of his plan.

So it was not just a mistake, it was not something that he forgot; he meant not to spend any money.

When we look at the Budget this year, $40 million is to be spent – that is over 2 years so that is $20 million a year – compared with the $700 million we put into the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, which would have built itself up with the private sector and interest to $2000 million.

That is called running when one comes out of a recession. Oh really! How does putting up GST make us run faster than the other countries that we compete with? Well, I can tell members that I was one who opposed GST. That is a matter of record, so no one can taunt me on that.

One of the reasons I did so was that it is the most regressive form of tax known to mankind. Does Mr Key know that the introduction of GST and the halving of the top tax rate that New Zealand introduced – dare I say a Labour Government introduced – in the 1980s - led to the greatest increase of wealth gap between rich and poor in New Zealand’s history.

The top tax rate was 66c in the dollar. It was halved to 33c so the people on the top rate got, and still get, a huge windfall in comparison with what they used to pay.

They got 33c on every dollar over the threshold, and that was a lot of dollars, whereas the poorest people in New Zealand were paying 20c in the dollar and they went down to 15c.
So they got 5c, the richest got 33c, and then they all paid 10 percent GST. That is fair, is it not?

The richest have discretionary income and they do not have to pay it all, whereas the poorest people have to pay all of their money on goods and services. Mr Key is either disingenuous or he thinks we are thick, because he said that is just a small increase in GST.

A small increase – 2.5 percent. If we look at the records, we see that GST income revenue for the government is about $11.55 billion. A 2.5% increase on $11.55 billion is another nearly $2 billion. That is $2000 million. That is just a small increase for Mr Key – he is a slow earner – but that means that every single New Zealander will face an increase on all goods and services they pay for.

That is particularly so for people on low incomes and medium incomes, which represents 75 percent of the country, I might tell members. Seventy-five percent of the country is on around or below the average wage.

Those people will face a $2000 million increase on all the goods and services they pay for. How does that work? And if we are to compensate those people with the $2000 million that we are forcing them to pay, then what is the point.

There is only one point if one is not going to compensate them with the same amount of money, then one cannot spend it.

But no, Mr Key thinks that we can take $2000 million out of the pockets of most New Zealanders, many of whom are below the average wage, and we will compensate them with the same amount of money that we charge them for GST, and that somehow it will all work out on the night.

If one believes that, then one believes in voodoo economics.

The Labour-Progressive Government had a research and development tax credit that would have amounted to about $380 million for science and technology, and we had to fight very hard to get that.

I thought that would be one of the policies that National would be sure to steal. Why would it not? No it cancelled it.

In the speech we heard today, there was talk about improving productivity and the rest of it in the agricultural and horticultural sector. Actually, while we were in government, the agricultural and horticultural had the highest productivity of any sector of the economy as a matter of fact, but it will not have it much longer, because all of that research and development investment has gone.

Here is what John Key said, again, in January 2008. It was a prolific year for John, that year. He stated: “Do you really believe this is as good as it gets for New Zealand? He went on to ask: “Or are you prepared to back yourselves and this country to be greater still?”

Greater still by increasing GST, canning investment in research and technology for the future, and not providing a skill base for tens of thousands of young Kiwis who will make a contribution to Australia, I presume, because that is where they will end up. We used to get hammered for that, but just watch this space as we go through this lot.

John Key’s speech lacks ideas. If one reads the 23 pages of it – I went through it and it is a big ask, I can tell members – one sees that there is not an original idea in it.

If one is looking for a strategic plan for New Zealand to do the sort of stuff he talks about, such as catching up with Australia, he mentions, among other things, rebuilding the Kopu Bridge.

I know that Queensland will be terrified at the thought that we will say that they may well have signed a contract for $100 billion of coal exports to China, but we are building the Kopu Bridge, so they should watch out. I mean is he serious?

While we are going through all this, Australia is up and running, which is the thing that we should have been planning for. We should have had a strategic plan.

I know that late in 2008, if we had won the last election, there would have been meetings of Cabinet over Christmas after that election. I think that the previous Prime Minister would have had meetings at her place over a roast chicken and would have used Christmas Day for an emergency Budget, and we would have had plans to get New Zealand through this and out of it with everything running.

What did we get from this new government?

Those members all went on holiday, and they stayed there.

We were almost wondering if they would ever meet again and whether there would be a Parliament, and one would have thought that everything in the world was hunky-dory, yet the rest of the world was melting down.

This is the result: a no think strategy.

When I was in the Labour government of the day, I used to say that there was one thing worse than a Think Big strategy, and that was a no think strategy. We had that then, and this is it now.

The thing is like Nightmare on Elm Street 3. One would think that someone would have learnt something from what did not work. This did not work.

If it had worked well, then why are we would not be in the problem we are now. If all this had worked well, then why are we in the hole we are in?

We did not go through all the meltdown in the financial sector that people in America went through and all the rest of it, so we had a great chance here.

We had good finances, low public debt, a strong financial balance sheet, and all the rest of it. That is what got us through.

That lot have no plan to deal with the crisis that we face with our own people.

This is the thought that I think I should leave the National members with: 150 relatively unskilled jobs available in a supermarket in South Auckland and 2.500 people queuing up for them.

If that doesn’t register, if those members do not know what that means, then they know nothing about New Zealand.

Plan for economy does not stack up

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-02-09T16:00:29+13:00

The plan for our economy announced by the Government this morning is a huge disappointment, Progressive leader Jim Anderton says.

“National thinks all we need to do to catch up to Australia is increase the price of a loaf of bread, increase the price of a litre of milk, increase the price of a litre of petrol, and put up the price of electricity,” Jim Anderton said.

“This from a prime minister who said before the election, “if National is elected and does a ‘half decent job’ at growing the economy, then increasing GST and the top tax rate will not be necessary.”

“New Zealand needs higher incomes not higher costs.

“The National Government has no plan for jobs, and no plan to increase wages.

“National slashed the R&D tax credit and abolished the two billion dollar Fast Forward fund. When it now says we need more science - those are just words. Its actions tell a different story.

Last year John Key told the Wall Street Journal, “We can use this recession to transform the economy to make us stronger so that when the world starts growing again we can be running faster than other countries we compete with.”

"His plan today will not transform the economy and make us stronger? How does putting up GST make us run faster than countries we compete with?

"Changing the tax system is not economic change. Compare that pathetic response to the Labour-Progressive government’s R&D tax credit of around $350 million, the largest ever company tax cut, a huge programme of personal tax cuts particularly for low to middle income earners and the largest ever investment in science in New Zealand.

“It just doesn’t stack up,” Jim Anderton said in Parliament.

Prisons not for sale in New Zealand

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-02-09T13:00:55+13:00

“The core business of prisons is to keep the community safe and reduce future crime; it is not to make money,” says MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton.

He was talking to prison officers who held a rally at parliament today to protest against the government’s proposal to re-introduce private prisons in New Zealand.

Former Progressive Party MP and Minister of Corrections Matt Robson put a stop to the private sector’s involvement in the management of prisons in 2000. The National-led government is planning to reverse that policy.

“Prison management should never be a viable private business because we don’t want crime to become a growth industry for anyone,” says Jim Anderton.

“The priority must always be to have prisons that keep the community safe. For those offenders who return to society, they must be returned as safer members of our community.

“Australia is learning that its experiment in private prisons might not have been such a good idea.”

Australia has the highest proportion of inmates in private prisons (around 17%) of any other nation. There is no significant evidence to suggest that the performance of privately run prisons is better than publicly run prisons.

An empirical study of one private prison in Queensland concluded that the private sector has failed to deliver on promises of both internal and external reform.

In Victoria, the Metropolitan Women’s prison has been taken back from private operators because of serious deficiencies in the operation.

“This government is determined to go back to the future, and start the Australian experiment all over again in New Zealand.

“Imprisonment is essentially a state responsibility which should not be delegated to the private sector for cost cutting or profit,” said Jim Anderton.

Jim Anderton at the prison officers’ rally at parliament with Labour MPs Clayton Cosgrove (Waimakariri - left of photo) and Grant Robertson (Wellington Central - right of photo).

Condolences for people of Haiti

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-02-09T14:44:18+13:00

House motion of condolence to people of Haiti

Our heart-felt condolences go to the people of Haiti today.

Over the Christmas/ New Year holiday period, we looked on in shock and horror as this fragile and poverty stricken country crumbled in a devastating earthquake.

It seemed so unfair that one of the poorest countries in the world should fall victim to a natural disaster of this magnitude.

Port au Prince is an earthquake prone capital just like Wellington.

But we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars earthquake-proofing our civic buildings.

Haitian buildings look less stable than matchbox houses.

So why was there no solid infrastructure in Haiti?

The simple answer is that Haiti is one of the poorest countries in the world and we are not.

The real tragedy for Haiti is that before the earthquake hit, the government of René Préval had committed itself to a huge program of development.

The international community, led by former US President Bill Clinton, had got behind Haiti.

A huge program was about to begin.

Finally, this country was on the right road for growth after years of dictatorship and corrupt government.

Then the earthquake hit.

Today, the international community - including New Zealand - must pick up that action plan again.

We must listen to the people of Haiti.

It is my heartfelt hope that the government will represent New Zealand and decide to play a role in that recovery phase, no matter how small our part.

We can help decide if Haiti will have a future of growth, or will return to abject poverty.

The decisions the international community make today really matter.

When NGOs and governments go in to build temporary housing and offer shelter to the thousands of homeless, we must make sure that these are built in areas where there is long term economic potential.

Because temporary housing has a habit of becoming permanent.

Not all the building should be in earthquake prone Port au Prince, for example.

Build shelters that can be expanded if the temporary dwellings end up being more permanent.
I would hope also that New Zealand will be a strong voice in the international community for jobs.

Because what the Haitian people need after the immediate relief effort is done, is jobs.

When the international community, NGOs and governments move in to help re-build the roads, the power stations and the buildings - use Haitian labour. Give the people jobs.

By all means, bring in the skilled labour Haiti doesn’t have – but Haiti doesn’t just need ‘doctors without borders’, it needs architects and engineers and accountants without borders.

Use the people of Haiti to build, and give them a living.

New Zealand will do much for the people of Haiti if we advocate for this approach to development right from the beginning.

This has been an unimaginable tragedy for Haiti. The re-building of this country must now be seen as an opportunity for a country and a people who deserve a better future.

Tax matters

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-02-08T12:00:39+13:00

Article for Older & Bolder February 2010

The economist and writer J K Galbraith once sagely remarked that nothing is as conducive to social harmony as the screams of the rich as they pay their taxes. While he may have been exaggerating for effect, there is a kernel of truth in what he said. Whatever we may think about paying our taxes – and I have yet to meet anyone who is enthusiastic about doing so - we all like to feel that our tax system is fair and that all are paying their proper share.

A task force set up by the present National led government has just reported on our tax system and made a number of recommendations and so it is appropriate to ask the question: if those recommendations are followed will we end up with a system which is at least as fair as the one we have now. The answer to that, regrettably, is that we will not, particularly if the taxpayers in question are on modest incomes. That applies to the great majority of those aged over sixty five, over seventy five per cent of whom live on national superannuation as their sole source of income. Those who do rely solely on national superannuation will be only too aware that, thanks to the previous Labour led government, it moves with the average wage and is a percentage of it, but it is by no means a king’s ransom, and that ‘modest’ is an accurate description of it.

The reason why the changes proposed will further widen the gap between most older citizens and New Zealanders generally in the higher income brackets is because it is proposed to reduce the top income tax rate while increasing GST to 15%. There are several reasons why this will have a negative effect on low income New Zealanders.

The first is that income tax is a graduated tax. Those with high incomes pay proportionally more because they can afford to. This is part of what is regarded as fair in the egalitarian society New Zealanders are rightly proud to live in. GST on the other hand is a flat tax. A millionaire pays the same tax on the loaf of bread that they buy as a pensioner on a fixed income.

It is also important to be aware that transaction taxes such as GST are what are known as regressive taxes i.e. because the lower your income the higher the proportion of it you have to devote to the necessities of life you have to buy. The discretionary expenditure of those on lower incomes is reduced when GST goes up and so you can’t adjust the effects of the tax on your budget by buying less of something you don’t need in the way that a wealthy person can.

But most of all it is important to remember that when universal GST was introduced in the nineteen eighties, it was accompanied by a massive reduction in the top tax rate from 66% to 33%. This meant that the wealthy got a major windfall but those on the lowest incomes when this was translated down the progressive tax system got a mere five cents in the dollar relief while having to bear the brunt of the new tax. Those who complain about having to pay too much tax and demand a reduction seem to have forgotten that they have been enjoying the benefit of already having had one for the last two decades.

Ironically one of the justifications of that ‘reform’ was that it was a ‘better way’ of doing things. I didn’t agree with that at the time but there are alternative and better ways of running a tax system which were not canvassed by the current government review group. In my next column I’ll spell out what one of those might be.

Good step forward but more urgency needed

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-02-04T20:11:25+13:00

The National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) scheme is an important step forward for New Zealand’s primary industry export sector but the lack of urgency to get this scheme up and running is worrying, said the opposition spokesperson on agriculture, Jim Anderton today.

“NAIT will ultimately see all livestock in New Zealand tagged as part of a database which traces animals from paddock to plate, a project which I strongly supported as the former Minister of Agriculture. We introduced the initiative in 2008 and would have had it implemented by now – as it needs to be. We had funding in place to develop a world-recognised animal identification and traceability system,” Jim Anderton said.

“NAIT is essential for maintaining international credibility for our food exports. The Labour-Progressive Opposition will be supporting the legislation for traceability and I would certainly like this scheme to have the importance given to it that it requires. The issue has been debated vigorously within the livestock industry for some years.

“David Carter, Minister of Agriculture, has announced that the date for implementation of the scheme will be in 2011 for cattle farmers and a year later for deer farmers. That means it will not be fully up and running in this term of government.

“Those that have opposed NAIT and used delaying tactics have been flying in the face of international reality. Having a scheme such as NAIT is how New Zealand demonstrates that we are one of the world’s leaders in producing high-quality, high-value, safe food.

“The world’s markets are increasingly demanding proof that food systems are of high-quality. Traceability is an important part of that. Consumers want to know where their food comes from, not just from what country, but sometimes even what farm and what particular part of a farm animals come from. NAIT will enable us to do that, on a systematic basis across the whole country. A comprehensive approach is called for.

“I congratulate the meat industry and especially Ian Corney, the NAIT chairman, who has worked with determination to overcome the obstacles to get the scheme accepted by the National government. It is time we saw action on this,” Jim Anderton said.

Cracks start to show after National’s bio-security cuts

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-02-04T20:08:41+13:00

“Last year the government cut at least 54 frontline jobs in biosecurity. This year a small beetle enters New Zealand, and threatens the potato and tomato industries. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to see the link here,” says MP for Wigram and leader of the Progressive Party, Jim Anderton.

At the time, Jim Anderton warned that cuts to staff responsible for preventing diseases and pests from entering New Zealand was false economy and left our borders vulnerable.

Pest like the Hadda Beetle found in Auckland recently can cause serious damage to local farming and horticulture industries.

“The government’s justification for getting rid of these staff last year was that trade and passenger numbers were in decline. It’s true, there has been a decline in the last quarter, but the long term trend over ten years, is definitely up.”

The value of imports per quarter in 1999 for example was just over $6 billion. Now, even with the recent decline, it is about $11 billion. Total monthly arrivals were approximately 240,000 in 1999 and with the recent decline, still remain at about 360,000 per month.

“Trying to save money by playing Russian Roulette on the New Zealand border is worse than false economy; it’s putting our economy at serious risk.”

The Hadda Beetle was found in Auckland’s Dove-Myer Robinson Park and the Auckland Domain.

MAF have reassured farmers and horticulturists, including Kiwifruit, avocado and aubergines growers, that the pests are no longer a threat and have been dealt with.

“The government might have got away with it this time. I hope so for the sake of those farmers. But with 54 less staff at the borders looking out for pests, it’s only a matter of time before we have another incursion.

“Prevention is better than cure. Keep the money and the jobs in biosecurity to stop pests getting in. Then you don’t have to spend more money on trying to eliminate them once they’re here.”

National shows its true colours – health cuts

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-01-22T11:52:31+13:00

A quick chat on the phone, and no more home help for you. This is how 2010 is starting for many elderly New Zealanders across the country, and the National Government couldn’t give a damn, said Wigram MP and Progressive Leader, Jim Anderton.
“Last year I was inundated with calls from elderly people in my electorate who were having their home help cut. Then I predicted that this would be repeated across the country. Unfortunately it looks as though I was right.”

Jim Anderton’s electorate office in Sydenham was receiving 15-20 calls a day from elderly people facing cuts, or concerned people worried about their neighbours.

The Kapiti Observer recently reported the same treatment of elderly people in the Kapiti region. Over forty upset locals have complained to Grey Power over cuts to Capital and Coast District Health Board funded home-help.

Elderly people are assessed over the phone, and then find that their 1-2 hours home-help with cleaning or shopping has been cut.

“Although it’s the District Health Boards making these decisions, whether in Wellington or Christchurch, they are cutting services because resources are limited. That’s a problem for the government, and Tony Ryall as Minister of Health should be doing something about it.”

Until now, elderly people who need it get help with basic domestic and personal activities like vacuuming and showering.

“I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg. If you get a government that promises tax cuts, then you’re going to have less money to spend on essential services, and then there’s only one way to balance the books.

“When my office contacted the Christchurch District Health Board, it was told that ‘families will need to take more responsibility for their elderly parents...If old people can’t go out shopping, there’s always on-line shopping; and if they can’t manage the cleaning they can just clean one room a day with a carpet sweeper.’ Well, I’d like to see my 90 year old constituent who has just had her help cut, carpet sweep the house on her walking frame!

“We need to have a proper public policy debate to work out how we’re going to deal with the health and welfare of the increasing numbers of aging New Zealanders. This shambles is certainly not the way to do it,” Jim Anderton said.

FTT better than increasing GST

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-01-21T11:43:39+13:00

A financial transactions tax is a better option for widening the tax base and reducing income tax than increasing GST, MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton says.

“GST is a regressive tax,” Jim Anderton says.

“GST falls hardest on people who spend most of their income every week - low and middle income earners. For people on fixed incomes, like superannuitants, it’s almost impossible to make up for the price rises they would pay at the shops.

“Instead of increasing GST, the government should look at paying for personal tax cuts by introducing a low financial transactions tax.

“A financial transaction tax could be set at a rate that for most transactions would be similar to the fee people pay for using an ATM, EFT-POS or electronic banking.

“A financial transaction tax is fairer than increasing GST because the majority of financial transactions are made by people with large sums of money to move around.

“Moving more of the tax burden to people who move very large sums of money around in search of speculative gains means people who actually work for a living have to pay less of the total tax share.

“James Tobin, the economist who invented the modern financial transaction tax, points out that it would reduce speculation and volatility in financial markets. After the global financial crisis exposed the irresponsibility of the finance sector, the time is right to take a fresh look at the idea.”

For more about financial transaction tax, see this Guardian newspaper article from December 2009.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/07/tobin-tax-climate-change-investment
And this November 2009 column by Nobel laureate in economics, Paul Krugman, “a financial transactions tax is an idea whose time has come.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/opinion/27krugman.html?_r=1

10 New Year wishes for farming

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-01-24T11:40:02+13:00

Column for Canterbury Farmer

It’s looking like a happy new year for dairy farmers; global demand for Fonterra's milk powder has picked up and the payout for 2010 is forecast at $6.05 – the second highest since the co-op was created in 2001; much of the extra cash will go on paying off rural debt. But the primary sector needs the government to get much busier if any recovery is going to last.

So here are my ten top wishes for farming at the start of a new decade:

Water, water, water - stored
Niwa has just confirmed that the first decade of the new millennium has been the hottest on record in New Zealand. That means we’re going to have to get much smarter very soon at storing water.

At the moment the government is only spending a small fraction on water storage - just $700,000 per year through the Community Irrigation Fund. It’s promising to do more. But this issue has been left on the back burner for too long already.

More research, quickly
Unfortunately for farmers, David Carter said in parliament recently that he was ‘adhering to his own strict timetable’ in allocating funds to research and development. That appears to mean doing nothing in 2009 and not much more in 2010 - for example, there’s only $25 million available in the next financial year to fund projects in the new Primary Growth Partnership (this has to be compared to the $700 million allocated by the Labour/Progressive government to the Fast Forward Fund over a ten year lifetime).

I want to see the process speeded up in 2010.

Don’t sell-out our lean meat reputation
Stall-based farming where cows can be kept in boxes for 24 hours a day will undermine New Zealand’s reputation for free-range, healthy meat.

Environment Minister Nick Smith is trying to duck for cover in 2010 and make Environment Canterbury responsible for the final decision on whether to approve the application for this kind of factory farming in the Mackenzie Basin. The government should have the backbone to make the decision itself.

Less photo ops, more action.
2009 was the year of smiles and photo opportunities for the new National government, with John Key ending the year in Copenhagen, all smiles but no progress on climate change. I’d l like to see less photos in 2010, and more action.

Find new ways to tap global markets
Sales on Fonterra’s internet-based trading platform ‘globalDairyTrade’ have just reached $1.36 billion. This is a great use of new technology to tap overseas markets. I hope we see more new ideas like this in 2010.
Farmers deserve affordable dental care too

The cost of basic dental care is a barrier to many people with a cash-flow problem, including farmers. I would like to see a multi-party agreement that affordable dental care become accessible to everyone.

Get rid of the Brash Taskforce
In Don Brash’s entire 150-page ‘2025 Taskforce Report’, farming got just 24 words. Anyone who believes that farming is a ‘sunset industry’ should not be given tax-payers money. Get rid of the Brash Taskforce in 2010.

Change the fishing act
Any Fisheries Minister must have a clear mandate to protect our oceans as a priority, when fish stocks are low or a species is threatened with extinction.

At present, the Act is unclear and that needs to change.

Get the banks back into local communities
Westpac’s recent decision to return to local branches in small communities (closer to farmers) demonstrates the impact Kiwibank has had on banking in New Zealand. I predict the other big banks will follow this path ‘back to the future’ in 2010.

Don’t forget working New Zealanders
Working New Zealanders, including farmers deserve a break too. I want to see more bright ideas in 2010 from this government on how to create jobs, and more support for those with big new ideas on how to trade better with the world.

2010 will be a good year for all of us if we’ve got more jobs and a decent return for honest hard work.

Jim's E-News, Christmas 2009

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-12-17T17:00:16+13:00

I’d like to wish a Happy Christmas and a good new year.

As we head off to spend holiday time with loved ones, and take a break from the pressures of daily life, this will be my last e-newsletter for 2009. It’s been a busy year, and an adjustment for us all to be in opposition. One bad day in government is worth a thousand good ones in opposition because in government you can make decisions which you know will help people and change lives.

Now we don’t have control of the purse strings. But we are making the most of our days in opposition to hold this government to account. It’s not only what the National-led government does that matters - it’s what it doesn’t do. And I don’t see any bright ideas or new initiatives which will create jobs, or support those with big new ideas to help us trade better with the world.

I see indecisive leadership from John Key, budget cuts, cuts to ACC, and looming problems with coalition partners like Act on the extreme right, and the Maori Party which seems hell-bent on being the party of Maori corporations and the affluent elite.

2010 will be a busy year. We will keep the pressure on this government to see more done for ordinary New Zealanders, Maori and Pakeha. We won’t let them get away with sitting back and hoping that ‘she’ll be right’ after a year of recession. New Zealand needs bigger ideas and more guts than a government which so far has come up with one idea; a national cycle pathway.

That’s not good enough after a year in government.

Enjoy the holiday season, and we’ll be back in 2010 ready to hit the ground running.

Here’s a summary of recent news items to give you an idea of what I’ve been doing in parliament and the electorate recently.

Feedback on dental care issues for New Zealanders
After the last e-news went out, I have received a range of communications, letters and emails on ways our dental system could be improved. It is generally agreed that cost is a major barrier for access to ongoing dental care for many people on fixed and low to middle incomes. Within this group, it is especially hard on the elderly, pregnant women, pre-school children and those with large families.

I am working on getting a reasonably accurate estimate of the total costs for New Zealand of the current dental system. This is quite complex but I have well informed contacts in the dental industry willing to help work on solutions.
Once dental care is free, then of course, there would be system changes. In the short-term check-ups would increase, followed by extra treatments. Over a period, the increase in check-ups and care of delayed treatments would result in improved dental health and lower treatments costs. Indeed, this is one of the reasons for making dental care free.

Correspondents are also agreed on the need for a parallel publicity campaign for people of all ages to have regular check-ups and cut down on the consumption of sugar (beverages, sweets, pastry) in favour of vegetables and fruit.

I will be in touch on the dental campaign early in 2010.

Copenhagen - New Zealand could be taking a lead, but it’s not
John Key looked indecisive when he couldn’t decide whether or not to go to Copenhagen. He only decided to go once a hundred other world leaders had bought their tickets. What kind of leadership is that?

It’s as if he accepts his presence is incapable of making any difference to whether or not the conference on climate change is a success or not. But it’s important to be there for the photo-op!

It’s that kind of non-committal attitude that is likely to see the Copenhagen talks end without agreement on clear targets for reducing emissions of carbon. John Key will have to take some responsibility for that.

As prime minister he’s making an art form out of not doing anything much (but always with a smile).

New Zealand could have been at the top table showing we were serious about climate change.

But this half-hearted participation at Copenhagen undermines our reputation for being leaders in this area and producing clean green food.

It didn’t help that John Key went to Copenhagen with a revised ETS (Emission Trading Scheme) which leaves the New Zealand taxpayer out of pocket. Big polluters aren’t paying, ordinary Kiwis are.

Someone has to pay for pollution; under National, Kiwi families will pay. The gap they have left for taxpayers to meet is $110 billion.

That’s $92,000 for each working Kiwi family.

North Shore Mayor gets unfair drubbing by Key’s cheer squad
Mayor Andrew Williams is being given an unfair drubbing by John Key and the media. He has been texting the Prime Minister about the Auckland Super City, and why not? John Key is a North Shore MP. So far, no-one has produced any evidence that these texts are abusive or that they were at an excessively late hour.

The media are showing their bias and are not listening to what Mayor Williams is saying. They are repeating the lines given to them by John Key on timing of text messages and that Mayor Williams messages have been ‘aggressive’. They are ignoring William’s criticisms of the National-ACT legislation for Auckland’s new Super City.

Where are the hard questions to the North Shore MPs, including John Key, on the issues that Andrew Williams wants answers to and is entitled to as Mayor of the North Shore? The media should be following up on that.

Andrew Williams has produced his phone records but it makes no difference. John Key is not being asked to prove his allegations about Williams. That doesn’t seem fair to me.

Andrew Williams is an outspoken mayor – but then all good mayors are outspoken. That’s their job!

He’s just trying to stop unacceptable and unpopular legislation as it’s rushed through the House before people have a chance to understand the real implications.

It is sad to see the very good relations that the Labour-Progressive government had with local government during the past nine years degenerate so quickly – but it is happening in so many areas so fast, that I guess it is par for the course and I predict we will see more of it in 2010.

Intensive dairy farming in the MacKenzie basin - our reputation is at risk
Reputation is everything. Copenhagen hasn’t helped. Neither has the application from three companies in the MacKenzie Basin a few weeks ago to use stall-based farming. This is the kind of farming where cows can be kept in boxes for 24 hours a day, eight months of the year.

When I was Minister of Agriculture in the last Labour-Progressive government, I went to Korea and Japan to advocate for our pastoral farming techniques. There was huge interest in our ability to produce lean meat that was healthier than the high fat content meat produced in Japan and Korea.

Many in those countries know their own meat is unhealthy and there was genuine interest in our approach to natural animal husbandry. There was an acknowledgement that New Zealand creates a high quality healthy product, compared to their own meat.

I saw grain-fed cows in stalls. They were some of the fattest cows I have ever seen. Some of them died of heart attacks. They were so fat, of course, because they get no exercise.

It doesn’t make any sense to casually throw away our clean, free-range, lean meat reputation for the sake of keeping cows in stalls on a few farms in the MacKenzie Basin. It only takes a few negative stories to reach international consumers, and our reputation is at risk.

Farming is a sunset industry? Yeah right....
You can understand why farmers are worried about the future. Stall-based farming is a silly idea. Farmers need good ideas. New pastures, crops, animal species and techniques won't invent themselves, which is why we need a government prepared to invest in research and development.

We currently spend around 1.2 percent of GDP on Research & Development. Our peers like Denmark, however, invest three percent.

When I was Minister of Agriculture in the Labour-Progressive government, I put millions of dollars into research and development in the primary sector.

Pioneering cleaner more cost-effective ways of farming makes sense for our farming sector and for the environment.

Unfortunately within the first few weeks of government John Key and the National party got rid of the Fast Forward Fund and $700 million set aside for  research and development. Since then not one cent of the promised funding has been spent on research and innovation.

I’ll be keeping the pressure on this government in 2010 to put funds into  research and development because if we don’t, New Zealand will miss out. The global population is growing, and food production will continue to be a huge industry. We can’t afford not to be a leader in this market.
Brash hardly mentions farming in his 2025 Report

In Don Brash’s entire 150-page 2025 Taskforce Report, farming got just 24 words.

Back in the eighties, the late David Lange said, "Farming is a sunset industry.” Looks like Don Brash agrees. Why is the National-led government letting Don Brash loose on the economy? Because of a coalition deal with Act.

The bad news is that Don Brash is going to keep getting paid for another few years to come up with yet more destructive and back to the future ideas.

Twenty years ago, politicians in both main parties thought that instead of growing export products, we were going to be the Switzerland of the South Pacific - an economy based on banking, earning a lavish income from financial services.

We can get a glimpse of what might have been by taking a look at Iceland now - a small, isolated country, with a strong primary industry that set out to become a global financial capital. Imports of beautiful luxury cars boomed.

And when those industries all fell over in the recession, which part of the Icelandic economy is still trundling along today? What’s left of its fishing industry.

All we need to do, Dr Brash says, is follow the same prescription of deregulation, speculation and monetary irresponsibility that wrecked Iceland.

There are ministers in this government who agree with that.

But instead of going back to the failed policies of the past, there are some less disruptive things we can try.

First, we need deeper pools of capital, so that each worker is more productive. Workers in capital intensive jobs earn much more. Every Australian job is backed by 1.2 times as much capital as the average job in developed countries. Every job in New Zealand has just 0.7 per cent as much capital.

Second, we need more science, research and innovation.

But after this government axed the Fast Forward Fund which we had set up with $700 million set aside for  research and development, it has spent a year doing nothing except creating another body called the ‘Primary Growth Partnership’. The PGP hasn’t allocated a single cent to  research and development yet, and it doesn’t appear that any will be invested in the near future.

The Minister of Agriculture, David Carter said in parliament recently that he was ‘adhering to his own strict timetable’ for  research and development funding, which appears to be to do nothing and spend nothing on primary sector research and development

We need a culture change to tackle binge drinking
Some people get very defensive when you talk about the need to change our attitudes to binge drinking. Columnist Karl du Fresne accused me and Professor Doug Sellman of being alarmist and presumably making him feel bad about drinking.

But his attack on us was a misguided reaction to what is a well-informed attempt to do something about binge drinking in New Zealand.

His personal drinking habits aren’t under attack and no-one is counting how many glasses of wine he consumes each day. I believe that three glasses of wine every day over many years constitutes heavy drinking. So does the World Health Organisation. Karl doesn’t think so, and that’s his choice.

For the record the 700,000 heavy drinkers Professor Doug Sellman and I referred to represent 25% of the New Zealand population who drink and are over 16 years old, not a percentage of the total population.

It’s ironic that Mr du Fresne’s column came out almost the same week that 300 leaders of the medical profession in New Zealand issued a statement against our heavy drinking culture, and the New Zealand and Australian police launched a massive police operation against alcohol-fuelled crime.

The New Zealand police commissioner Howard Broad said "While legislation and enforcement are key, changing the drinking culture is crucial.” We need a culture change, especially as we head into the holiday season, and commentators like Karl du Fresne have to decide whether they want to help or hinder.

Kiwibank leads big banks back to local services
It’s ironic. Kiwibank was created in part as a response to the monopoly behaviour of the big banks who were abandoning small communities throughout New Zealand. Today, those banks have seen the error of their ways and are returning to a small town near you.

Westpac’s decision to return to boutique style branches in small communities so they can get closer to where customers live, demonstrates the impact Kiwibank has had on banking in New Zealand.

Westpac chief executive George Frazis now says that it was a mistake for his bank to abandon local branches in the 1990s.

Kiwibank reversed this trend by setting up regional branches and bank outlets so that local customers had access to bank services where ever they lived. Westpac now plans to return to a local branch system.

Today, Kiwibank has by far the biggest network of any bank in New Zealand, with more than three hundred branches (at least one hundred more than any other bank) and 650,000 customers. It operates in nearly forty communities where it is the only bank service available.

We knew at the time that it was not only the right thing to do, but that it made business sense to keep banking services close to where people live.

It’s taken Westpac more than ten years to realise this, but at least they deserve credit for reversing the failed policies of the 1990s, and returning to local banking.

It’s a shame that given this re-engagement with the public of New Zealand, Westpac didn’t show up at the Parliamentary Banking Inquiry recently. We would have welcomed their views. Kiwibank was the only bank that fronted.

It’s only a matter of time now before the other banks follow Kiwibank and return to local banking.

Mayor gets unfair drubbing by Key’s cheer squad

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-12-15T14:42:49+13:00

Mayor Andrew Williams is being given an unfair drubbing by the John Key’s media cheer squad, Jim Anderton said today.

“The media are showing their bias and are not listening to what Mayor Williams is saying. They are mindlessly repeating the lines given to them by John Key on timing of text messages and that Mayor Williams has been ‘aggressive’ in his communications to North Shore MPs, including John Key, MP for Helensville. For example, they are ignoring William’s criticisms of the National-ACT legislation for Auckland’s new Super City,” Jim Anderton said.

“Where are the hard questions to the North Shore MPs, including John Key, on the issues that Andrew Williams wants answers to, and is entitled to receive, as Mayor of the North Shore. Unfortunately, that seems all too hard for the National friendly media.

“Andrew Williams has produced his phone records but it makes no difference. John Key is not being asked for his to prove his allegations about Williams. No wonder the PM is so relaxed knowing he can say what he likes to discredit his opposition – and get away with it.

“Andrew Williams is an outspoken mayor – but then all good mayors are outspoken. That’s their job!

“He is a thorn in the side of those who driving the implementation of Auckland as a ‘Super City’ with barely a pause for breath. It is too reminiscent of Roger Douglas’ strategy in the 1980s for my liking. Douglas’ plan was to get unacceptable and unpopular legislation through the House before people understood their real implications.

“It is sad to see the very good relations that the Labour-Progressive government had with local government during the past nine years degenerate so quickly – but it is happening in so many areas so fast, that I guess it is par for the course and I predict we will unfortunately be experiencing a lot more of it in 2010,” Jim Anderton said today.

Parliament right to fix problem for marine farmers

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-12-10T12:54:14+13:00

“Parliament’s select committee was right to amend the Aquaculture Bill so that a co-operative of marine famers can continue to farm shell fish in the Coromandel, as they have been doing since 1983,” says MP for Wigram and Progressive party leader Jim Anderton.

He was referring to the recent decision by Parliament’s primary production select committee to introduce a specific amendment and fix a legal anomaly so that the Coromandel Marine Farmers Association can continue to farm.

The Association represents a co-operative of marine farmers who farm under a single permit. Changes to legislation governing aquaculture in 2004 had created a unique problem in the Coromandel area which has since been stuck in the courts. The Association was initially established in 1983, and subsequently granted a Marine Farming Permit in 1998. Since then the area has been used collectively by marine farmers in the area.

In 1999 Environment Waikato (the regional council) made changes to the marine farming provisions of its coastal plan, and at that time questions were raised as to whether the site had been lawfully authorised.

Since then, the issue has stayed in the courts, making it impossible for the marine farmers to apply for new permits under the 2004 aquaculture legislation.

“The select committee recognised that the validity of the initial permit given over ten years ago could remain an issue for the courts indefinitely, making it impossible for the farmers to apply for a new permit under a new regulatory system.

“I introduced the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill in 2004 to get rid of these sorts of inconsistencies in the system. That was the spirit behind the bill.

“We’re likely to see more marine farms in New Zealand. It’s a growth area for the New Zealand economy and we should be supporting it. My Bill recognised also that commercial aquaculture must always be done in balance with the needs of boaties and other users of our coastal areas. There is a benefit to growing the aquaculture sector; the marine farmers depend on clean high-quality water, which is often an incentive to clean up pollutants coming into the waterways.

“Russell Norman and the Greens have got it wrong when they accuse the select committee of favouring an individual by amending my Bill. There is a general principle here, which is to use the parliamentary system to fix a problem that isn’t being solved any other way, so that these farmers can continue to work,” says Jim Anderton

Our lean meat reputation at risk

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-12-09T17:49:45+13:00

Stall-based farming where cows can be kept in boxes for 24 hours a day, eight months of the year will undermine New Zealand’s reputation for free-range, lean and healthy meat, says Opposition Spokesperson for Agriculture and Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton.

“When I was minister of Agriculture in the last Labour-led government, I went to Korea and Japan to advocate for our pastoral farming techniques.

“There was huge interest in our ability to produce lean meat that was healthier than the high fat content meat produced in Japan and Korea.

“Many in those countries know their own meat is unhealthy and there was genuine interest in our approach to natural animal husbandry”, Jim Anderton said.

“There was an acknowledgement that New Zealand creates a high quality healthy product, compared to their own meat.

“I saw grain-fed cows in stalls. They were some of the fattest cows I have ever seen. Some of them died of heart attacks, they’re so fat and of course they get no exercise.

“It doesn’t make any sense to casually throw away our clean, free-range, lean meat reputation for the sake of keeping cows in stalls on a few farms in the Mackenzie Basin.

“It only takes a few negative stories to reach the international consumers, and our reputation is at risk,” says Jim Anderton.

Three companies in New Zealand have recently sought resource consents for sixteen new dairy farm developments in the Mackenzie Basin, with nearly 18,000 cows to be housed in cubicle stables. Cows would be confined in the stalls for 24 hours a day for eight months of the year.

After a year, government does nothing for R&D

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-12-09T17:49:30+13:00

The Minister of Agriculture, David Carter said in parliament today that he was ‘adhering to his own strict timetable’ which appears to be to do nothing and spend nothing in the first year of National-led government on primary sector research and development, says Opposition Spokesperson for Agriculture, and Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton.

“The National government canned the Fast Forward Fund as soon as it came to power and replaced it with its own Primary Growth Partnership.

“After a year in office they’re not even out of the planning phase,” Jim Anderton said in parliament today.

“Projects were being developed and progress was under way through the ‘Fast Forward’ fund, set up by us the Labour/Progressive government at the time the National party came to power.

“There was already $700 million in the MAF accounts, ready to fund applications.”

$700 million was transferred to the Fast Forward fund in November just before the election in 2008. Organisations like Fonterra, Meat & Wool, Dairy New Zealand and others had committed to match this amount over approximately five years to ten years.

“In this current financial year, not one cent has been paid out for any research and innovation project, and no payment is likely any time soon.

“Under John Key’s leadership, new primary sector research and development has virtually stopped, even though agriculture, horticulture, forestry and fishing are our most important and productive economic resources,” says Jim Anderton.

Kiwibank leads big banks back to local services

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-12-03T15:11:23+13:00

Westpac’s decision to return to boutique style branches in small communities so they can get closer to where customers live, demonstrates the impact Kiwibank has had on banking in New Zealand.

Jim Anderton was instrumental in setting up Kiwibank under a coalition agreement with Labour in 2001, at a time when the big Australian owned banks were abandoning rural and provincial New Zealand as well as local urban communities.

Westpac chief executive George Frazis now says that it was a mistake for his bank to abandon local branches in the 1990s.
Kiwibank reversed this trend by setting up regional branches and bank outlets so that local customers had access to bank services where ever they lived.

Westpac now plans to return to a local branch system. This is a welcome, if belated move from a bank customers viewpoint.

Today, Kiwibank has by far the biggest network of any bank in New Zealand, with more than three hundred branches (at least one hundred more than any other bank) and 650,000 customers. It operates in nearly forty communities where it is the only bank service available.

“We knew at the time that it was not only the right thing to do, but that it made business sense to keep banking services close to where people live,” says MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton.

“It’s taken Westpac more than ten years to realise this, but they deserve credit for reversing the failed policies of the 1990s, and returning to local banking.”

“It’s a shame that given this re-engagement with the public of New Zealand, Westpac didn’t show up at the Parliamentary Banking Inquiry recently. We would have welcomed their views. Kiwibank was the only bank that fronted.”

“It’s only a matter of time now before the other banks follow Kiwibank and return to local banking,” says Jim Anderton.

Key weak on Copenhagen

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-11-30T16:34:27+13:00

John Key’s is being weak and indecisive over whether to go to Copenhagen for a global conference on climate change, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.

“The prime minister is displaying an absence of leadership. He is saying he will only go if the conference is going to be a success. He is therefore accepting his presence is incapable of making any difference to whether it is a success or not.

“This is a failure of leadership. He should accept his share of responsibility for helping to make a difference.

“Instead, the prime minister is making an art form out of not doing anything.

“If he does flip-flop and decide to go, it will only be to make a photo opportunity out of associating himself with a success he has had nothing to do with.

“But his big subsidies for big polluters make him irrelevant anyway.”

Brash calls for return to failed policies of the past

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-11-30T16:33:06+13:00

“It’s like the return of Dracula.”

That’s how Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton is describing Don Brash’s recommendations released today.

“Don Brash and David Caygill were cheerleaders for the asset sales, deep spending cuts and wage cuts that only worsened the income gap with Australia. When they started New Zealand had parity with Australia and when they finished we were thirty per cent behind.

“Now they want to go back to the failed policies of the past.

“It’s not surprising that when Don Brash heads an inquiry at Act’s behest, he comes up with Act’s policies. Act is playing a very helpful footstool role for the government, where it takes all the hits and helps soften up the public for the National Party.

“More asset sales, deep spending cuts, radical policy change, and higher costs for low and middle income households wouldn’t make New Zealand better off.”

Erebus pilots deserve justice after 30 years

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-11-27T15:38:28+13:00

After thirty years, Air New Zealand needs to apologise to the families of the pilots of flight TE 901 who were wrongly blamed for the Mt Erebus crash which claimed the lives of 257 passengers and crew.

This Saturday (28 November) will mark the thirtieth anniversary since the crash.

A Royal Commission of Enquiry in 1980, led by Justice Mahon found that “organisational failure” was to blame for the crash. Justice Mahon also said that in his opinion, Air New Zealand had deliberately set out to put the blame on ‘pilot error’.

At the time, Air New Zealand undermined what became known as the ‘Mahon Report’ and its findings have only recently been formally acknowledged.

Thirty years later, the families of the pilots have never received an apology from Air New Zealand, who not only failed to stand by their own pilots, but actively sought to pass the blame onto the pilots, despite evidence which clearly showed they were not to blame.

Here is what the Mahon Report says: “In my opinion..the single dominant and effective cause of the disaster was the mistake made by those airline officials who programmed the aircraft to fly directly at Mt Erebus and omitted to tell the aircrew. That mistake is directly attributable, not so much to the persons who made it, but to the incompetent administrative airline procedures which made the mistake possible. In my opinion, neither Captain Collins nor First Officer Cassin nor the flight engineers made any error which contributed to the disaster, and were not responsible for its occurrence.”

“It is my hope, and the hope of many New Zealanders, that this injustice will be set right on Saturday, and the families of the pilots of flight TE901 will hear an apology from Air New Zealand,” Jim Anderton said.

Opening the new Rodger Wright Centre

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-11-20T19:00:48+13:00

I am very happy to be here today to witness this blessing, and the opening of the new Rodger Wright premises.

It’s normal practice at a house-warming to bring a present or flowers, and I’m sorry I’ve come empty handed. But giving the wrong present at an opening can be worse than giving nothing at all.

I heard of a new school that opened recently, and a supporter wanted to send flowers for the occasion. The flowers arrived and the staff read the card; it said ‘Rest in Peace.’ The supporter was furious, and he phoned the florist to complain.

After he’d told the florist of the obvious mistake and how angry he was, the florist said: ‘Sir, I’m really sorry for the mistake, but rather than getting angry, you should imagine this; somewhere there is a funeral taking place today, and they have flowers with a note saying, ‘Congratulations on your new location.’

I was pleased to be able to launch the free-to-users, one-for-one Needle Exchange Programme (NEP) in 2004, and it’s wonderful today to know it has made the difference we knew it would.

Most people know that I am strongly anti-drugs. To some, it still seems like a contradiction to be anti-drugs, but to have funded a free needle exchange service to drug users.

But anyone who has watched a loved one use drugs knows that the fear that they are sharing needles is almost as bad as the fear that they are taking dangerous drugs.
You are always anxious that someone you love will not just suffer the after effects of drug use, but that they may pick up HIV or Hepatitis C from sharing needles.

The NEP has very positive results to show. New Zealand has the lowest number of people with the H.I.V. virus in the world, there has been a marked reduction in those with Hepatitis C, and visits to the Accident and Emergency department in Christchurch have declined by 30 per cent for drug using related incidents.

It was the evidence that drove me to introduce the free ‘needle-exchange programme’.

Back in 2002 when I was the minister responsible for drug policy, I received an independent review which told me that the needle exchange programme saved lives, and back then, it was saving $35 million in treatment costs since it had been established.
It would be saving even more today.

The report told me that the programme back then had prevented twenty deaths from AIDS, and reduced by more than 2000 the cases of Hepatitis C and HIV.

When you get a report like that in government, you sit up and take notice.

The report also came up with some strong recommendations. One was a recommendation to remove a legal anomaly around the possession of needles and syringes.

As a result of this report, I took a Bill to parliament in 2004, changing the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Bill did other things too, like bringing in much tougher rules controlling methamphetamines.

It also recommended a law change regarding the possession of needles. The amendment I brought in at the time was a technical one that reversed the onus of proof on a person found with needles in their possession. It was meant to make the needle exchange programme work better.

Tony Ryall - then an opposition MP - called it “political correctness by a liberal Government.”

He’s now the Minister of Health, and has responsibility for the needle exchange programme. I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was sneering about political correctness as a reflex action, rather than because he is genuinely misguided.

But there you have some insight into the battle you have to face if you want to do the right thing to minimise the harm caused by drug use.

Just because an idea is good, and just because it works, doesn’t mean we can take for granted that it will be supported.

We later introduced the one-for-one programme that made needles available freely. I made (and succeeded with) a budget bid for $4 million dollars to fund the programme and I did it as part of the coalition agreement that the Progressive Party had with Labour at the time – for which my Labour colleagues here today deserve thanks for their support.
There were people who sneered at that as liberal political correctness. I can tell you from personal experience that there aren’t many votes in being wise or liberal about drug abuse.

But it was the right thing to do.

I am proud to have contributed to it. I am proud to have played a part in saving many lives.
I am also pleased we have saved many millions of dollars in treatment costs that our heath system would otherwise have incurred.

Most of all I would like to congratulate the people here today who have made such an effort to make this programme a success. And these new premises are evidence of the work you have done.

As a politician, I know that to make a difference to peoples’ lives, more often than not, means going the extra mile. I thank you for your commitment.

I wish we didn’t need this programme. I wish we didn’t have drug use causing the harm it does, wrecking the lives of many people, and wrecking many communities. But it does happen. It will keep happening.

And if we care about vulnerable victims then our responsibility is to reduce the harm to them as much as we can. The needle exchange programme does just that and I continue to support it for that reason.

1000 people die because of heavy drinking each year

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-11-26T15:21:22+13:00

When over 300 leading doctors and nurses and the heads of police in New Zealand and Australia agree that we face an urgent and serious issue with alcohol abuse, then we know we have a problem, says MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton.

He welcomed the release today of a joint statement from New Zealand doctors and nurses, calling for the Law Commission to recommend reducing the marketing and advertising of alcohol; lowering the purchase age; increasing the price of alcohol; reducing the availability of alcohol; and doing more to counter drink-driving.

New Zealand and Australian police commissioners met recently to talk about the culture of binge drinking in both countries, and to agree to a series of crackdowns against alcohol-fueled crime and antisocial behaviour this Christmas.

“This is our chance to do something about binge drinking. The legislation must be changed, and the Law Commission is looking at that right now,” says Jim Anderton.

75% of people who show up in emergency rooms on a Friday or a Saturday night will have injuries related in some way to alcohol. 60% of people arrested by the police are under the influence of alcohol.

“25% of New Zealand drinkers are heavy drinkers. That’s equal to the combined population of both Wellington and Christchurch.

“To put this national crisis into perspective, each year less than ten people die as a result of using the drug commonly known as ‘P’. Twenty people died from swine flu this year.1000 people die from alcohol related problems each year.”

“But it’ll take more than legislation to change our attitude to binge drinking. What we need is a culture change. We need to stop romanticising heavy drinking.

“That’s why I want to see alcohol sponsorship, particularly for sports events banned, and the marketing of alco-pops to our teenagers stopped. Evidence shows that every advertisement seen by a young person (15-24 years) increases the number of drinks they consume by 1%. They become customers for life and the liquor industry banks on it,” says Jim Anderton

National’s third world way to govern

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-11-27T15:18:23+13:00

It’s hypocritical for the National Party to attack those who criticise its dodgy deal on emissions trading, Progressive MP Jim Anderton says.

“National needs to say if it still supports the concept of full and final Treaty settlements.

“It has gone from declaring an unrealistic timeframe for Treaty settlements, its leader declaring ‘The Treaty did not create a partnership’, and Gerry Brownlee calling a Maori member of parliament a ‘black fella’, to now accusing someone else of playing the race card if they oppose National’s deal.

“National has done a grace and favour deal that cannot be justified on its merit. That is a third world way to govern and has no place in New Zealand.

“Last year I raised in Cabinet my concern about re-opening Treaty settlements from the nineties to compensate for loss of value in forests that had been part of a Treaty settlement. My Labour colleagues agreed with me that if we had compensated in that way, we would never be able to achieve final settlement.

“National has now reversed its position. It did so to get a deal with the Maori Party on an emission trading scheme, and now its trying to label as racist anyone who criticises the deal. That is dishonest and comes from a party that has done more than any other party in recent years to whip up racial tensions.”

Examples of Gerry Brownlee’s record on race relations;
“Why is the Government continuing to negotiate with a group that will not accept the Crown’s ownership of the foreshore and seabed?” - In parliament, on Tuesday, May 31, 2005, about negotiations with Ngati Porou:

“National would change the foreshore law to prevent the Maori Land Court hearing customary rights cases and investigate axing the court altogether.” - NZ Herald, 18 April 2005.

“What I think is that there is a large amount of worry – considerable amount of worry among people about where all this is heading and where we fit into it, and much of that is about someone at some point proclaiming what it is to be a New Zealander.” - Agenda, 6 November 2004.

Called John Tamihere ‘black fella’ - 10 February 2004.

‘Full and final’ Waitangi settlements?

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-11-18T16:55:23+13:00

If the government reopens the Treaty settlement with Ngai Tahu because of the ETS, there will never again be any such principle as ‘full and final’ settlements, Progressive MP Jim Anderton says.

“The government is heading down a very damaging path by doing a special deal that revisits the 1990s settlement with Ngai Tahu.

“This issue was raised with the previous government, when Ngai Tahu questioned the effect of an ETS on its Treaty settlement. When Cabinet considered this issue I personally raised the issue of principle that was at stake. If we reopened a settlement because of a subsequent new policy, it would be never-ending. On that basis, Cabinet decided not to reopen the settlement.

“To reopen it now makes a mockery of Treaty settlements.

“Governments make lots of decisions that affect assets like land and forests. It changes tax law, influences exchange rate policy and changes laws around land use, as well as changing environmental legislation, such as emissions.

“If the government has to compensate over ETS, then it has to compensate over any change of policy that might negatively affect valuation.

“I notice no one wants to revisit the settlement when governments make decisions that subsequently increase the value of the asset.

“What the Government is doing is creating a new class of assets that are former Treaty settlement assets, and they would never stop being Treaty assets. They would always be liable for compensation.

“Crown Law received an independent legal opinion that refutes suggestions there was bad faith or any breach of obligation in the settlement. The government should not be exposing the taxpayer to this unlimited risk particularly as a result of an expedient political deal with the Maori Party,” says Jim Anderton.

Does the law support sustainability of our fisheries?

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-11-19T13:52:09+13:00

Speech Notes prepared for Hon Jim Anderton, at A Law, Policy and Science Symposium, Otago University Stadium Centre, Wellington

Has anyone here eaten fish and chips recently?

Because apparently I’m the minister who took the fish out of fish and chips.

The fact that someone could even say that shows you how far we are from having a rational debate about the right of a minister to protect our fishing resource. Last time I looked, there was still fish in my fish and chips.

What I actually did, as Minister of Fisheries was introduce new rules in an effort to save the world's rarest and smallest dolphin from extinction. What I tried to do was pass an amendment to the 1996 Fisheries Act which would have struck the right balance between sustainability and the need to use and fish our oceans. It would have made it clear that the most important part of the minister’s job, on behalf of all New Zealanders, is to protect the sustainability of our fishing resource.

As the law stands today, it remains vague about when a minister can err on the side of caution, and act to protect a species like Orange Roughey (let alone endangered mammals like the Hector and Maui dolphins.)

Without this amendment, the Act bucks international best practice. It makes it almost impossible to come down on the side of sustainability. Because before a minister can do anything, the Act insists that the information and the science prove beyond doubt that a fish stock is at risk of catastrophic depletion.

In reality, the information we get is often incomplete and flawed. It’s very hard to follow the behaviour of a fish stock. It’s an imperfect science.

That’s why internationally, there is consensus that where information is uncertain or flawed, ministers should adopt a precautionary approach, and should not use the uncertainty of the information as a reason for postponing or failing to take measures to protect species.

This lack of clarity in the New Zealand law has allowed the fishing industry to take ministers to court when they come down on the side of protection, because they can claim that the proof is not absolute.

I couldn’t get the support across the House to get this amendment passed. This was a surprise to me, because when it had its first reading in parliament, I seemed to have the support of most political parties. Certainly the comments in the house were positive!

National MP Phil Heatley said he supported the Bill because it “provided a clearer direction to the minister..to take a cautious approach”. But between then and when the Bill was taken to Select Committee, something happened. The National Party, the Maori Party and NZ First all miraculously changed their minds. What happened? I’ll tell you what happened - certain lobby groups in the industry spoke to those MPs. The industry got to them.

And so here we are today, with nothing changed.

It’s ironic; this week, New Zealand was rated by a leading ocean studies journal as “the world’s top performing country for managing its marine and fishery resources.” The same Phil Heatley who back in 2007 allowed the industry to tell him what to do, the same Phil Heatley who made sure the Bill to improve the legislation didn’t make it out of select committee, is now the Fisheries Minister.

He couldn’t wait to tell everyone the good news about this award. What he didn’t say in his press release is that he is responsible, along with others, for the fact that we can’t implement those policies that helped us get the award, because he and others let the industry get to him before we could amend and clarify the law.

I want to make something very clear; commercial fishing is good for New Zealand. It creates jobs, and it creates exports, which help to grow our economy. But it must be done sustainably.

When I was asked to make the decision to close some of the in-shore fisheries to protect the Maui dolphin in particular and also the Hector dolphin, one of the first things I asked was - what effect would this have on the livelihoods of the fishermen affected? I felt that the economic analysis I was presented with wasn’t satisfactory. So I decided to get a full analysis done.

Plenty of people were telling me not to; they said it would only provide ammunition for the fishing industry. But I wanted all of the facts.

The economic analysis showed that 380 jobs would be lost. That to me made the decision agonising. I certainly didn’t go into politics to destroy jobs. And therefore I was very careful to minimise the impact on people affected, by taking as hard a line as I could on which areas would be protected.

In the end, the rules I introduced were not the most severe of the options proposed to me. I had to strike the best achievable balance between fishing activity and the protection of two iconic species.

We ended up with a variety of regional bans and other restrictions on set netting, trawling and drift netting in coastal waters. Set netting was banned around much of the South Island's coast, and there were new trawl restrictions close to shore on the east and south coasts.

On the upper North Island's west coast existing set net bans were extended, and new trawling and drift netting bans were introduced.

We had to do something. Alongside the economic analysis I had, the other piece of advice I was given was that we were facing the imminent extinction of these species of dolphin. At the time there were fewer than 8,000 Hector dolphins, mostly around the South Island. And the North Island Maui's dolphin was estimated to number only around 111 dolphins. It was classified as "nationally critical" by the Department of Conservation.

In all of the discussion about my decision to protect the dolphin I am yet to hear anyone say that it’s a good idea to be blasé about making an entire species - let alone a species of mammal - extinct on our watch.

Instead those who thought I was wrong claimed they’d never seen dolphin in the area of the fishery that I closed. That’s plainly because the number of dolphin has significantly reduced; there are hardly any Maui dolphins left! So of course you’re not going to see, let alone, catch them very often. But you only have to catch one in five years to risk the entire future of the Maui dolphin species.

Therefore, it was shocking to me that the law allowed the industry to use the courts to override my decision to reduce the risks to such an iconic species of mammals - native only in New Zealand.

It’s hard to understand why the fishing industry won’t see that taking a cautious approach in the short term is best for the industry too. We all benefit in the long run, when the resource grows.

That’s why the Act needs amending. It must be clear, so that lawyers and judges can’t fill the gap where there is any uncertainty. While the Act has two purposes - to provide for the utilisation of the oceans, while preserving sustainability, its paramount obligation must be to protect any species of fish or mammal where ever there is a need, even when the information is uncertain or limited.

After the courts overturned parts of my decision to close certain areas to commercial fishing, the industry seemed to think they’d won a victory. Of course this was only an interim decision, and we are still waiting for a final ruling from the High Court. I still hope that commonsense will prevail.

But at the time, I still got a letter from the fishing industry gloating that no dolphin had been recorded as caught during the interim moratorium. The letter was signed off - smugly- “We all make mistakes don’t we Jim...?”

We do all make mistakes - but this was not one of mine. The smug arrogant attitude of the fishing lobby clearly shows in how much peril the dolphins remain.

I had another letter from a commercial fisherman that was written in a different tone. The fisherman wrote to tell me that he had once caught a dolphin, and not declared it. He had felt guilty ever since, and he wanted the minister of fisheries to know that dolphins and other endangered species do end up in the nets of commercial fishermen.

To be fair, the parts of the coast that the judge kept open were areas where the evidence of peril to the dolphin was weakest. On the other hand, I’d already made my decision to exclude from the closure some areas where a case existed for closure to protect the dolphins. I did that because I wanted to reduce the affects of job losses as much as possible.

For that, I was vigorously attacked by sections of the conservation movement. Their attacks were not wholly unjustified because there certainly was some small risk. But in my view it is unacceptable that the law allowed a greater risk to be taken than the one I’d already accepted; because I’d already pushed the boundary back as far as I considered reasonable and balanced.

The policy that the law allows today is a grotesque abdication of parliamentary responsibility and, in my view, was never intended to be the outcome when parliament passed the Act in 1996.
Section 10 of the original Act fails to make it clear that when the information about a fish stock is incomplete, but on balance the evidence points to a looming crisis in stock numbers, the minister must not use that flawed information as a reason to delay or fail to protect that species.

That failure to spell out the priorities clearly has meant that nearly every minister of fisheries in recent history has ended up being taken to court by the industry. The fuzziness around priorities has been a field day for lawyers.

If we decide that our priorities surrounding sustainability of our fisheries are important to us, then parliament should make that policy very clear in the law. The risk of extinction is not a risk we should take by mumbling obfuscation in the statute. Therefore the act needs to make protection from extinction explicit and not leave it to interpretation by the Courts.

This point is obscured by the case a lot of people seem to make that marine mammals should enjoy absolute protection.

Instead we should focus on protecting a mammal from extinction. This is much more clear cut than shielding a species from any potential harm at all.

No-one wants dolphins to be caught and killed and we can pass various rules about fishing practice that ensures that we minimise the dolphin by-catch. It’s reasonable to have a debate about the balance between those rules and the need to enjoy our ocean resource.

It is not reasonable to simplify the issue to a choice between utilisation of the resource on the one hand, or the complete extinction of a species on the other. Not all mammals need absolute protection.

Let me give you the example of sea lions on Auckland Island. I know there are a range of views on the sea lions, and I didn’t have any advice that they were endangered. I became very familiar with these sea lions, because for much of my term as fishing minister, I received postcards from cute little baby sea lions, that read “Dear Jim, please don’t kill my mother”!

I can tell you definitively - my receptionist received no item of correspondence more frequently each morning than these heart-felt pleas, many of them from school children insisting it would be heartless, matricide were I to authorise the slaughter of these defenceless mothers.

I’m sure these postcards were great revenue raisers for sections of the conversation movement, and for NZ Post! I have no doubt the donations poured in. I am a little more doubtful that the recipients of these generous donations were making it clear that the sea lion population in this area was not endangered; in fact it was growing satisfactorily.

On the other hand, the fishing industry does itself few favours. When I was minister we put observers on 4% of all fishing boats. That’s one out of every twenty-five fishing boats. What a coincidence it is that 100% of all reported by-catch of birds, seals or dolphins occurs only on these boats with the observers aboard!

No-one ever reports catching a dolphin, a sea lion, an albatross or any other protected species when they don’t have an observer on-board. Perhaps the fishing industry has a point and these observers are the real threat to endangered species.

Or perhaps there’s another explanation. We’re left today with a situation where the law does not clearly support the sustainability of our fisheries.

The industry should take a good hard look at itself before it takes another minister to court. Because a fish in the sea is a fish in the bank. Many fish are long lived, and if not they are generally prolific breeders. We all benefit from a cautious approach.

My story with the Maui and Hector's dolphins is a good example of why the Fisheries Act continues to need changing. The requirement for the minister to keep allowing fishing to continue until he or she can PROVE beyond doubt that the environment or an entire species is in peril - must go.

We all know that the information gathered about the state of fish stocks is rough and anecdotal, as it was when we were trying to establish exactly how many hector dolphins remain.

The industry pays for much of the research, and it should think twice before it continues to insist that we spend more money on gathering yet more information. If they give us no choice, we might just have to do that.

A minister must be able to take a precautionary position and decide to lean towards the protection of a species where there is a risk. It is our parliamentary obligation to do so.

A judge, as an interpreter of the law, should not be expected to choose between sustainability and utilisation. Sustainability should, in law, be our most important objective in fisheries management. If our fish stocks become unsustainable there will be no fish for the industry - or anyone else - to catch.

This must surely change, and I will continue to fight for that change.

The law stops us saving dolphins

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-11-19T13:50:05+13:00

The Fisheries Act must be amended so that ministers have a clear mandate to protect our oceans as a priority, when fish stocks are low or a species is threatened with extinction, says MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton.

The Act is unclear about when the minister can favour sustainability over commercial use, and act to protect a species like Orange Roughy for example, or endangered mammals like the Hector and Maui dolphins.

“It demands that a minister prove beyond doubt that a species is threatened. But in reality, the information we get is often incomplete and flawed. It’s very hard to follow the behaviour of a fish stock. It’s an imperfect science.

“That’s why internationally, there is consensus that where information is uncertain ministers should adopt a precautionary approach, and protect a species as a priority.”

In 2008 Jim Anderton, then Fisheries Minister, introduced new rules and closed certain areas to commercial fishing in an effort to save the world's rarest and smallest dolphin from extinction - the Maui dolphin. The fishing industry took the government to court because they claimed that the proof was not absolute. The court is still to make a final ruling on the case.

As minister, Jim Anderton introduced a Bill to amend the Act to make it clear that the most important part of the minister’s job, on behalf of all New Zealanders, is to protect the sustainability of our fishing resource.

“I couldn’t get the support across the House to get this amendment passed. National MP Phil Heatley said in parliament that he supported the Bill because it “provided a clearer direction to the minister..to take a cautious approach.

“But between then and when the Bill was taken to Select Committee, the fishing industry got to him, to the Maori Party and to NZ First. Their support was subsequently withdrawn.

“Now that Phil Heatley is the Minister of Fisheries, he is still refusing to do something about this toothless fisheries act. The industry would do well to consider that a fish in the sea is a fish in the bank, and we all benefit when we protect the resources in our oceans,” says Jim Anderton.

Jim Anderton's speech notes at a marine mammals symposium are here.

Jim's E-News, November 2009

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-11-16T15:00:07+13:00

DENTAL CARE ISSUES FOR NEW ZEALANDERS
I am involving myself in a project to raise the profile of, and extend the services for, dental treatment in New Zealand.

The cost of dental treatment is a significant barrier to lifetime dental care and as a result, neglected teeth and gums are a hidden but critical problem for New Zealand’s healthcare system which needs to be urgently addressed.

It is my strongly held view that a high quality, accessible and affordable dental system should be part of the general medical health system in New Zealand. This would provide a public-private partnership which would enable all of our citizens from their earliest years right through to their last, to have their teeth cared for by qualified dental professionals at an affordable cost.

From one end of New Zealand to the other I have been made aware of the importance of this issue to a large number of our citizens, young and old, and it is well beyond time when action rather than words was seen and heard to be taking place.

I would be grateful to hear from you by email, fax or letter about your thoughts on this vital issue.

Contact me here.

ACC IS THE BEST IN THE WORLD - BIKERS RALLY, CHRISTCHURCH
Let’s be clear about one thing; New Zealand has the best accident compensation scheme in the world. It’s not broken, so why try and fix it; and no matter what Nick Smith tries to tell you - it’s not broke. It has reserves of money. It has over $11 billion of reserves, and last year it collected $1 billion more in levies, than it spent on claims.

Bikers are being unfairly targeted – Nick Smith wants them to pay three times as much in ACC levies as they are paying today.

Today motorcyclists are paying about $252. Tomorrow they will be paying $735.

This is outrageous. And it is completely unnecessary - because ACC can pay its bills without making them pay three times as much.

ACC was set up as a no-fault system to be run by a government-owned company so that everyone who has an accident gets looked after, and at a lower cost than overseas.

It was never intended to penalise certain groups that it saw as ‘high risk’ - otherwise where do you stop? If its bikers today, why not old people who are more likely to fall over than anyone else; why not 6 year boys who play rugby and are more likely to get hurt than kids playing chess?

The point of the scheme was to avoid this situation, and draw on the overall resources of the whole community. So we all pay a bit, and no one is disadvantaged. Every one avoids the very large lawyers’ bills and insurance company profits that have to be paid under a private insurance system.

We gave up the right to sue under this system, in return for the fair treatment of injured people.

The National-led government is playing dirty with the figures. It’s insisting that all imagined accidents in the future should be paid right now by people like the bike riders. But this wasn’t what ACC was set up to do. It was always intended to be a ‘pay as you go’ scheme.

That means the levies received in any one year, pay for the accidents in that year. And that system has been working fine - in fact ACC has even managed to put aside significant resources.

The real agenda here, is to set up ACC for a gradual return to a privately run insurance scheme. Scaremongering about costs is just the Trojan horse. And inside the Trojan horse is a bunch of lawyers and foreign insurance companies, licking their lips and looking forward to getting their hands on your levies!

I am entirely opposed to any private scheme. And I totally reject the National government’s attempt to make bikers pay three times as much.

URGENT INQUIRY INTO MONETARY POLICY NOW
We should put party politics aside and come up with a new approach to monetary policy which supports people in New Zealand who produce tradeable goods, rather than those who speculate on property and take the profits off-shore.

The National-led government and its coalition partners refused to take part in the inquiry, with the PM cynically calling it a ‘stunt’ from the opposition parties.

I don’t believe in the “nothing we can do” stance of this government. We could be looking to remove the incentives for those buying investment properties. Banks need to be encouraged to lend to businesses; and we need to review our tax system which at the moment encourages unproductive property investment and discourages investment in the productive tradeable export goods sector.

We need to look at regulating the banking sector so that ordinary New Zealanders don’t pay (in interest rates or hidden bank fees) while the Australian-owned banks make excessive profits.

With the National-led government complacently sitting on the sidelines, New Zealanders will be the losers for it.

To download the banking inquiry report, go here, or get in touch with my office.

BANKING INQUIRY BACKGROUNDER AND FINDINGS
The ‘big four’ Australian banks control nearly 90% of banking assets in New Zealand. The three New Zealand owned banks have 4% of banking assets.

Have the Banks made a profit?
The combined profits of the ‘big four’ Australian owned banks now exceed the combined profits of all other companies listed on the stock exchange NZX 50 series.

In 2008 Banks earned $3.26 billion; the earnings of the NZX 50 were $2.89 billion.

Did the Banks pass on the cut to the Official Cash Rate (OCR)?
The Reserve Bank cut the OCR from its high of 8.25 % in mid 2008, to only 2.5% today.

But the overseas owned banks reduced interest rates by less than the fall in the OCR. 1% margin in interest rates was not passed on to bank customers. 1% extra interest added $787 million to costs for New Zealand businesses; and 1% higher margin on loans added $460 million to the net interest costs to the farming sector.

The biggest cost was in the housing sector: 1% extra interest cost added over $1.6 billion to mortgage repayments.

New Zealand businesses are suffering
In 2009 bank lending for home loans rose about $3.2 billion (to $164.8 billion). Meanwhile business lending fell by about $3 billion (to $78 billion.)

The effects on the farming sector have been negative

Federated Farmers interest rates survey in June 2009 found that farm business overdraft interest rates had fallen an average of 2.68 % since December 2008. Meanwhile the OCR was cut by 4%.

Ordinary New Zealanders had problems paying their mortgages
In five years, Budgeting and Family Support Services has only seen one family lose their house in a mortgage sale. But in the first three months on 2009, fifteen families had already lost their home.

Have the Banks contributed to overseas debt and a housing bubble?
In the last ten years, personal lending has almost doubled, from $60 billion to $105 billion; most of the lending has been for housing.

Home loans now make up 55% of bank lending, up from 35% ten years ago. The banks borrowed more money to fund property price increases which contributed to a rise in overseas debt.

Between 2003 and 2009 net overseas liabilities rose from $100.6 billion to $176.3 billion; that’s a rise from 76.8% of GDP to 98%.

What have the banks got to do with our volatile exchange rate?
High overseas borrowing has impacted on the exchange rate which is subject to high volatility. The export sector makes up roughly 30% of GDP - about $40 billion per year but suffers the most from currency instability which means uncertain returns.

PROGRESSIVE SUBMISSION ON THE LAW COMMISSION PAPER: ‘ALCOHOL IN OUR LIVES’ I am under no illusion about the challenge involved if we are to seriously reduce the harm caused by alcohol. But doing nothing is not an option.

Alcohol is by far the most damaging drug in the country. It causes between $2-$3 billion dollars worth of economic and social harm each year. The personal cost to families and loved ones is incalculable. How can we measure the cost of a family tragedy?

One of the most damaging drugs we face right now is not even illegal; our kids can buy it in the local dairy; they play sports and have it promoted to them all the time; they see it on TV, on billboards and hear about it on the radio.

The abuse of alcohol amongst our young people is on the rise and it’s destroying lives.

I have been working with others like Dr Doug Sellman of the Otago School of Medicine to raise awareness of the damage that alcohol is causing. We have a unique opportunity right now to do something, through the Law Commission’s review of the legislation to do with the drinking age, the availability and the advertising of alcohol.

Did you know that every advertisement seen by a young person increases the number of drinks they consume by 1%. They become customers for life. And people like you end up picking up the pieces.

Currently, $200,000 per day is spent on marketing and advertising alcohol. About half the marketing is spent on sponsorship.

I welcome the Law Commission’s issues paper which gives New Zealanders a unique opportunity to reform the legal framework in which alcohol is sold, advertised and promoted.

It gives us a chance today to do more to protect New Zealanders from the harm caused by the abuse of alcohol.

The Progressive Party submission calls on the Law Commission to do more in its final recommendations to guide law makers on how to further curb alcohol advertising, particularly to the most vulnerable New Zealanders - the young. I would like to see more options put forward by the Law Commission on how we can greatly reduce the availability of alcohol to young people. I have also given my opinions and made comments on every option put forward in the Law Commission’s paper, ‘Alcohol in our Lives’.

For the full submission: go here.

For my speech to the National CAYAD hui, go here.

"Ten things the alcohol industry won't tell you about alcohol"
Alcohol Action are holding their last two last meetings this week with presenter Dr. Doug Sellman.

The meetings are at: CHRISTCHURCH: Art Gallery Theatre, Tuesday 17th November, 7.30-9pm PORIRUA: Helen Smith Community Room, Wednesday 18th November, 7.30-9pm

There is still time to get in a late submissions to the Law Commission.

Use milk payout to farmers to strengthen industry
It's important that the increase in Fonterra's payout to farmers is used to strengthen the industry, and not squandered.

The increased pay out is very timely for a large number of farmers who have been struggling with higher input prices and enormous costs for financing. Interest rates for many farmers have not come down.

But the risk is that the higher payout will lead to higher farm valuations and in turn to yet more farm indebtedness. That's what happened too often when the milk payout reached $7 a kilo. When the price then dropped, it left a lot of farmers under mortgage stress.

Banks should be careful about getting into the same position of lending against valuations based on favourable milk payouts.

The payout shows New Zealand is well positioned as a food producer to continue to earn a living when global conditions are less than favourable.

When payouts increase as much as this one has, the extra earnings need to be used to strengthen the industry, for example by stronger investment in research and development, and strenthening balance sheets to reduce our exposure to rapacious overseas owned banks.

A generation of kids will be lost – New Zealand must do more
Launch of the Mutima Project in Christchurch

16,000 children are dying from hunger every day because food aid is now at its lowest level in twenty years, but the National government remains determined not to use our aid for ‘poverty reduction.

The head of the United Nation’s World Food Programme recently announced that tens of millions of the world’s poor will have their food rations cut or cancelled in the next few weeks because some OECD countries have slashed aid after the financial crisis.

The Mutima project is a volunteer organisation and will send a team of cardiac surgeons to Zambia to perform life-saving heart surgery on young adults.

I commend them for the strength of their personal commitment and their determination to serve. We are a stronger and more caring community because of people like these Christchurch surgeons. Because of them, a hundred young Zambians will have a second chance at life.

About 60% of the Zambian population are living on less than a $1 per day.

But where is the urgency from the National government to save a generation of children who will die from starvation if the world does nothing?

The National government has recently announced that it will abolish the goal of ‘poverty reduction’ for our aid, and replace it with a goal of ‘economic development’.

I am a strong champion of economic development but you can’t do much business development if people don’t have enough to eat or clean water to drink.

I want to see the National government do more about bad governance and corruption in some of the poorest countries and see New Zealand get behind a new international Natural Resource Charter which sets out ‘best practice’ in countries with natural resources like oil (or copper in Zambia), so proceeds of those resources go to the poorest people and don’t end up in the pockets of the corrupt.

For the speech, go here.

Who owns the ASB? Not us.
The ASB has been an Australian owned bank for the last two decades, and it is misleading the public when it pretends to be a ‘Kiwi Bank’.

The ABS is running promotional ads claiming ‘We’ve been a Kiwi Bank since 1847’.

The truth is we don’t really know who owns the ASB. We know it is owned 100% by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA), but who owns the Commonwealth Bank?

It used to be owned by the Federal Government of Australia but it was privatised in stages beginning in 1991.

Almost half of the current owners of the Commonwealth Bank are ‘nominee’ companies.

That means their identities are hidden behind other well-known companies, like the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC).

We don’t really know who owns ASB. All we know for sure is that New Zealand doesn’t.

For the release, go here.

An ‘unfortunate arrangement’
The Auditor General’s findings about Bill English’s accommodation arrangements go significantly further than findings that caused Marion Hobbs and Phillida Bunkle to stand down from ministerial office in 2001. This makes Mr English’s position as finance minister very difficult. I have been in the same position as Mr Key, in having to make a decision on the future of the Minister. A precedent for the right thing to do has been set.

I wrote to the Auditor-General saying Mr English’ arrangements needed scrutiny. The report finds Mr English’s arrangements were not within the rules. The Auditor General’s report states:

The result was that the Crown was renting a property for Mr English from a trust in which he had an interest, and the arrangement was explicitly based on a view that he did not have an interest. Clearly, this was unfortunate.

The report discloses Mr English went to some lengths to arrange his affairs around the accommodation allowance entitlement. That is not a good look for a Minister of Finance.

The Auditor-General’s advice does not even mention other issues that the Prime Minister still needs to consider: that Mr English was giving his Wellington address as his home for the purpose of being a director of a company (incidentally, the company that owns his Dipton investment), but claiming to live in Dipton for the purpose of receiving an accommodation allowance.

A prudent minister might have noticed the contradiction between those two claims.

I have always welcomed the idea of Mr English having his family with him in Wellington. That is not the issue. The question is whether he was right to claim entitlements for doing so. It would not have been in any way objectionable if Mr English had lived in Wellington with his family and claimed an out of town allowance for his occasional trips to Dipton.

For the release, go here.

Urgent inquiry into monetary policy now

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-11-11T10:08:27+13:00

We must put party politics aside and come up with a new approach to monetary policy which supports people in New Zealand who produce tradeable goods, rather than those who speculate on property and take the profits off-shore, says MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader, Jim Anderton.

The Report from the Parliamentary Banking Inquiry was released today.

The inquiry was held by the Progressive Party, The Labour Party and the Greens. The National-led government and its coalition partners refused to take part in the inquiry.

The report proves that the ‘big four’ Australian owned banks did not pass on all of the cut in the OCR (Official cash Rate). The Reserve Bank cut the OCR from its high in mid 2008 of 8.25 per cent, to only 2.5 per cent today. But the banks kept a one per cent margin in interest rates for themselves. One per cent extra interest added $787 million in costs for New Zealand businesses; $460 million extra to the cost of loans in the farming sector; and $1.6 billion to the cost of mortgage repayments.

“This tells us it doesn’t matter what the Reserve Bank does with interest rates; the big Australian-owned banks will do whatever they want. Changing the OCR rate to try and help businesses or home owners during hard times isn’t working.”

“Fifty organisations and individuals made submissions - from the New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association to the Council of Trade Unions. Each of them asked the inquiry to put pressure on the New Zealand parliament and the Reserve Bank to review monetary policy now.

“The government can no longer sit on the side-lines and say ‘there’s nothing we can do’.

“We need to look at how we can remove incentives to invest in property, otherwise we’re headed for another boom and bust cycle in property prices, and another recession. Banks must be encouraged to lend to businesses; and we need to review our tax system which at the moment encourages unproductive property investment and discourages investment in the productive tradeable good export sector.

"We need to look at regulating the banking sector so that ordinary New Zealanders don’t pay (in interest rates or hidden bank fees) while the Australian-owned banks make excessive profits.

“There’s always more we can do. We just need the political will to do it,” says Jim Anderton.

Download the banking inquiry report here. [Pdf, 3.2 Mb]

Visit the banking inquiry website here.

‘Big four’ banks failed farmers in recession year

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-11-16T09:00:50+13:00

It’s official; the ‘big four’ Australian owned banks failed to pass on the Reserve Bank’s cut in interest rates (the Official Cash Rate or the OCR) and farmers, New Zealand businesses and home owners paid heavily during the worst recession this country has seen since the 1930s.

If you’re a farmer, you already know this because this has been a tough year; not only are you a farmer running your own business, but you’re likely to be a home owner too with a mortgage. You know what it felt like personally. Here’s what the numbers looked like for 2009:

The Reserve Bank cut the OCR from its high in mid 2008 of 8.25 per cent, to only 2.5 per cent today. But a one per cent margin in interest rates was not passed on by the big banks to their customers, to farmers, businesses and home owners. The banks kept it for themselves.

One per cent extra interest added $787 million in costs for New Zealand businesses; and $460 million extra to the cost of loans in the farming sector.

The biggest cost was in the housing sector: home owners paid an extra $1.6 billion in mortgage repayments thanks to the banks holding back that one per cent for themselves.

This tells us it doesn’t matter what the Reserve Bank does with interest rates; the big Australian-owned banks will do whatever they want. Changing the OCR rate to try and help businesses or home owners during hard times hasn’t worked.

All New Zealanders should be worried about that. At the moment the banks have every incentive to borrow more money from overseas so that they can keep lending to anyone wanting to invest in property. They don’t care that this will likely kick start another housing boom and increase New Zealand’s debt, and possibly lead to another recession. It’s not their job to care.

It is the job of the government to care.

I was part of the Banking Inquiry, along with my colleagues in the Labour Party and the Greens. The parliamentary parties who weren’t there should be ashamed. It’s not good enough to say ‘there’s nothing we can do’ to support those who trade with the world and are at the whim of volatile exchange rates and high interest rates at the banks.

We have to find new tools and new ways to support exporters -to support people who produce things rather than those who speculate on properties and take their money off-shore. Otherwise our overseas debt will continue to grow and our quality of life will slip while the property investors get rich.

I want to see an urgent multi-party review of monetary policy. And this time, the government must be there, along with the Reserve Bank. The National Party, Act, The Maori Party and United owe it to New Zealanders to look at the ideas that came up during the Banking Inquiry - from Federated Farmers, the Council for Trade Unions, the Manufacturers and Exporters Association and many others.

We need to look at how we can remove incentives to invest in property, and instead encourage banks to lend to businesses. This could mean a review of our tax system which at the moment encourages unproductive property investment and discourages investment in the productive tradeable good export sector.

We need to look at ways of regulating the banking sector so that ordinary New Zealanders don’t pay (in interest rates or hidden bank fees) while the Australian-owned banks make a profit and take the money off-shore.

It will not be good enough for the government to stand on the side-lines next time, and say “There’s nothing we can do”. There’s always more we can do. We just need the political will to do it.

CAYAD conference

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-11-10T12:00:14+13:00

A note from Jim Anderton to the National CAYAD conference
Hine Rupe Marae, Paikea St, Te Araroa, 9 – 11 November 2009

Firstly, I would like to thank my friend and colleague Denis O’Reilly for reading this to you. Just tell him to stick to the script!

I am disappointed not to be with you today, and if it wasn’t for the doctor’s orders, I would be standing with you now, spreading my flu germs, and probably reducing the short term effectiveness of CAYAD across the country because you’d all be sick next week!

Talking of the flu - here’s an interesting fact for you:

Twenty people died in New Zealand from Swine Flu this year.
1000 people in New Zealand die each year from alcohol.

And yet you’d think that swine flu was the biggest epidemic to hit New Zealand in decades.

All of you here today know that the biggest health crisis in New Zealand is actually drug abuse, including and increasingly, alcohol abuse.

I’m going to say more about alcohol in a moment, but first my gratitude goes out to all of you here today - the co-coordinators from each CAYAD site from across the country, and the people and organisations that work so closely with you.

One of the successes of CAYAD is the way in which you have brought communities, the health and education sectors, local government, and many others, together. That is not an easy thing to do. But you have kept everyone focused on the urgency of the problem we face with drugs and alcohol abuse, and you have kept believing that: “We can make a difference”.

This is the first major CAYAD hui that I have missed in many years. By now, you should know how much I respect your work and how proud I am of your dedication achievements over the years.

You are on the front line. You are saving lives everyday. And by doing that you are making this country a better place to live and a more hopeful place for our children to live and grow.

To do this job, you have to have an extraordinary level of skills; you have to be a social worker, a community organiser, a health expert, a politician, a teacher, a leader and a best friend - all in the same day. I know from meeting many of you, that CAYAD has been lucky to attract such highly skilled and committed people.

We know that the social cost to New Zealand of illicit drug use is over $1 billion per year. The cost of alcohol abuse is closer to $3 billion. The personal cost to families and loved ones is incalculable. How can we measure the cost of a family tragedy?

You know as well as I do that one of the most damaging drugs we face right now is not even illegal; our kids can buy it in the local dairy; they play sports and have it promoted to them all the time; they see it on TV, on billboards and hear about it on the radio.

The abuse of alcohol amongst our young people is on the rise and it’s destroying lives.

I have been working with others like Dr Doug Sellman of the Otago School of Medicine to raise awareness of the damage that alcohol is causing. We have a unique opportunity right now to do something, through the Law Commission’s review of the legislation to do with the drinking age, the availability of alcohol and the advertising of alcohol.

Did you know that every advertisement seen by a young person increases the number of drinks they consume by 1%. They become customers for life. And people like you end up picking up the pieces.

Currently, $200,000 per day is spent on marketing and advertising alcohol. About half the marketing is spent on sponsorship.

I would like to see the alcohol sponsorship of sports games banned. It can be done; who sponsors netball these days? New World Supermarkets; and Rothmans cigarettes no longer sponsor cricket - the National Bank does. We might not always like the big Banks, but at least they’re not peddling drugs to our young people!

I know that CAYAD will be active in raising awareness of the problems of alcohol as we review the legislation. Doing nothing is not an option. What we need is a culture change.

All Black’s games and the Black Caps Summer Cricket series drip in alcohol promotion. Yet we act surprised when leading sportsmen like cricketer, Jesse Ryder and rugby star, Jimmy Cowan get into trouble for drinking too much.

I want to see the legal drinking age raised; I would like to see the price of alcohol increased; accessibility, advertising and marketing of alcohol greatly reduced; and drink-driving counter-measures increased.

A final word on ‘P before I let Denis sit down; I want to see the horror of ‘P’ gone from our communities. The truth is the National government’s ban on cold remedies at the chemist isn’t going to make that much difference.

If we’re serious about stopping the flow of methamphetamine and other amphetamine type stimulants, we have to do it at the border. Police and customs officers know that the majority of the main ingredients in ‘P’ come across our borders from countries like China, India and Indonesia.

So it’s a great shame that the National-led government has cut fifty-nine frontline staff at our borders; they could be monitoring more passengers and shipping containers to prevent more ‘P’ ingredients arriving here.

You are dealing with these issues everyday, and you are doing it with a kaupapa Māori approach because too many of our young people who fall victim to drugs are Māori. What you do works.

We all know - its common sense - that drug problems are most serious when young people feel they don't have a future - that's when widespread drug problems take root.

So we must continue to do everything we can to create a future for our young people. After all these years, those of you involved with CAYAD continue to give us hope for the future. I wish you a successful hui, and you will always have my support and respect. Kia ora.

Use milk payout to farmers to strengthen industry

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-11-09T15:00:22+13:00

It's important that the increase in Fonterra's payout to farmers is used to strengthen the industry, and not squandered, Opposition agriculture spokesperson Jim Anderton says.

He is welcoming Fonterra's 95 cent increase in the forecast payout to $6.05 per kilogram of milk solids.

"The increased pay out is very timely for a large number of farmers who have been struggling with higher input prices and enormous costs for financing. Interest rates for many farmers have not come down.”

"But the risk is that the higher payout will lead to higher farm valuations and in turn to yet more farm indebtedness. That's what happened too often when the milk payout reached $7 a kilo. When the price then dropped, it left a lot of farmers under mortgage stress.”

"Banks should be careful about getting into the same position of lending against valuations based on favourable milk payouts.”

"The payout shows New Zealand is well positioned as a food producer to continue to earn a living when global conditions are less than favourable.”

“When payouts increase as much as this one has, the extra earnings need to be used to strengthen the industry, such as stronger investment in research and development, and stronger balance sheets to reduce our exposure to rapacious overseas owned banks," Jim Anderton said.

A generation of kids will be lost - NZ must do more

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-10-29T17:30:34+13:00

16,000 children are dying from hunger every day because food aid is now at its lowest level in twenty years, but the National government remains determined not to use our aid for ‘poverty reduction,” says Progressive leader and MP Jim Anderton.

The head of the United Nation’s World Food Programme recently announced that tens of millions of the world’s poor will have their food rations cut or cancelled in the next few weeks because some OECD countries have slashed aid after the financial crisis.

Jim Anderton was talking at the launch of the Mutima Project in Christchurch tonight.

The Mutima project is a volunteer organisation and will send a team of cardiac surgeons to Zambia to perform life-saving heart surgery on young adults.

“I commend them for the strength of their personal commitment and their determination to serve. We are a stronger and more caring community because of people like these Christchurch surgeons. Because of them, a hundred young Zambians will have a second chance at life.”

About 60% of the Zambian population are living on less than a $1 per day.

“But where is the urgency from the National government to save a generation of children who will die from starvation if the world does nothing?”

The National government has recently announced that it will abolish the goal of ‘poverty reduction’ for our aid, and replace it with a goal of ‘economic development’.

“I am a strong champion of economic development - I used to be Minister of Economic Development. But you can’t do much business development if people don’t have enough to eat or clean water to drink.”

“I also want to see the National government do more about bad governance and corruption in some of the poorest countries.”

“I want to see New Zealand get behind a new international Natural Resource Charter which sets out ‘best practice’ in countries with natural resources like oil (or copper in Zambia), so proceeds of those resources go to the poorest people and don’t end up in the pockets of the corrupt,” says Jim Anderton.

Launch of the Mutima Project

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-10-29T17:30:16+13:00

The official launch of the Mutima Project

29 October 2009, 5.30pm.

Princess Margaret Hospital, Christchurch

SPEECH NOTES

I’m very pleased to be here tonight at the official launch of the Mutima Project.

I am often called on to speak to groups of volunteers who give up their time and use their skills to help other people; whether it’s the Canterbury Coastguard, community volunteers, or cardiac surgeons - (you might actually be my first group of cardiac surgeons).

Each time, I’m struck by the strength of the personal commitment of each of you to serve and help others. We are a stronger and more caring community because of people like you.

The organisations and businesses that have supported the project also deserve our thanks and our praise for being there when you needed them.

I once heard an ad which called on people to volunteer; it said ‘Volunteer! What else are you going to do with a degree in literature?’ You can’t say the same about those of you here tonight; ‘what else are you going to do with a degree in cardiac surgery?’ Well - hopefully a lot. We are here to celebrate that you are choosing to give up your time and use your skills to help the people of Zambia.

I’ve also heard it said that when it comes to community service, if you need something done - give it to the busiest person! I know that many of you are busy professional people, but still, more than 30 of you will make the time to travel to Zambia and carry out 100 heart operations over five years.

Some people spend a life-time volunteering.

I heard a story from a daughter who had just helped her 90-year-old mother through the strain of moving from the family home into a retirement home.

The daughter was trying to tidy up all the arrangements and tactfully said: "Mum, what about Meals on Wheels?" To which her mother replied: "No, dear, I don't think I could volunteer for them anymore.”

Behind the willingness to volunteer is the recognition that there is an urgent problem, and if you don’t do anything, people will suffer or die.

I was sickened the other day to read this statistic:16,000 children are dying from hunger-related illnesses every day on this beautiful planet of ours.

This is a quote from the head of the United Nation’s World Food Programme, who warns that food aid is now at its lowest level in 20 years – even though the need is greater than it has ever been.

Tens of millions of the world's poor will have their food rations cut or cancelled in the next few weeks because rich countries have slashed aid funding as a result of the financial crisis.

The number of hungry people in the world has increased from 150 million to more than one billion - in a single year.

We’re talking about the loss of a generation of children to malnutrition, food riots and political destabilisation. It’s a silent tsunami.

This generation of children will never recover unless we do something.

And yet our newspapers aren’t running headlines telling us about this tragedy; there’s no sense of urgency that we have to keep trying to do something.

As many of you here know - some of this tragedy is playing out in Zambia as we speak.

About 60 % of the Zambian population are reportedly living on less than $1 per day.

One in five adults is affected by HIV.

But it’s not all hopeless. There’s a lot we can do, as a country both through our membership of international organisations, and as individuals.

The Zambian economy has depended on copper mining for many years now.
And yet despite being rich in natural resources, its people have been stuck in extreme poverty.

Political corruption and the bad practice of international mining organisations have played their part.

Today, there is international pressure to see countries like Zambia sign up to a draft Natural Resource Charter. This would guide the actions of governments and international businesses so that the proceeds of natural resources go towards development, not into the pockets of the corrupt.

I would like to see New Zealand get behind this Charter and do everything we can to get the governments and businesses in rich countries and the governments of developing countries to sign up to best practice.

I would like to see New Zealand do more as good global citizens. It’s a great shame that NZAID, our aid agency will now be absorbed back into the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The goal of ‘poverty reduction’ for our aid has been replaced with the goal of ‘economic development’.

I am a strong champion of economic development - I used to be Minister of Economic Development’. But you can’t do much business development if people don’t have enough to eat or clean water to drink, or good quality health care.

We can put pressure on politicians to do the right thing. But what we each decide to do as individuals matters too.

Whether you’re performing heart surgery on a young person in Zambia and giving them a second chance at life; or whether you’re a supporter of the Mutima project - your decision to be part of this project matters.

Thanks to you, a hundred young adult Zambians will have a chance to lead productive and active lives.

Who knows? One of them might become a future leader determined to do more to save that generation of children who are dying right now.

You will have left behind a better functioning hospital system so that in the future Zambian surgeons can perform critical surgery themselve, and projects like Mutima won’t be necessary.

But for today, your work is urgently needed, and I applaud you for your decision to do something to save lives. I wish you the best of luck and I look forward to hearing all about it when you get back.

Who owns the ASB? Not us

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-10-29T16:22:19+13:00

The ASB has been an Australian owned bank for the last two decades, and it is misleading the public when it pretends to be a ‘Kiwi Bank’, says Progressive MP Jim Anderton.

The ABS is running promotional ads claiming ‘We’ve been a Kiwi Bank since 1847.”

“The truth is we don’t really know who owns the ASB. We know it is owned 100% by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA), but who owns the Commonwealth Bank?

“It used to be owned by the Federal Government of Australia but it was privatised in stages beginning in 1991.”

Almost half of the current owners of the Commonwealth Bank are ‘nominee’ companies. That means their identities are hidden behind other well-known companies, like the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC).

“We don’t really know who owns ASB. All we know for sure is that New Zealand doesn’t.”

In 1989, the ASB Bank Community Trust sold 75% of the shares to The Commonwealth Bank of Australia. In 2000 the CBA bought the remaining 25% of ASB shares from the Trust.

Since 2000 the ABS has been 100% owned by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia.

“We do however have a New Zealand owned banking network owned by all New Zealanders - and it’s called ‘Kiwibank’.”

“The Aussies are welcome to start their own ‘Aussiebank’ but they shouldn’t try to pinch ours,” says Jim Anderton.

An ‘unfortunate’ arrangement

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-10-28T16:45:56+13:00

The Auditor General’s findings about Bill English’s accommodation arrangements go significantly further than findings that caused Marion Hobbs and Phillida Bunkle to stand down from ministerial office in 2001, Progressive MP Jim Anderton says.

“This makes Mr English’s position as finance minister very difficult,” Jim Anderton says.

“I have been in the same position as Mr Key is now in, in having to make a decision on the future of the Minister. A precedent for the right thing to do has been set.”

Jim Anderton wrote to the Auditor-General saying Mr English’ arrangements needed scrutiny. The report finds Mr English’s arrangements were not within the rules. The Auditor General’s report states:

The result was that the Crown was renting a property for Mr English from a trust in which he had an interest, and the arrangement was explicitly based on a view that he did not have an interest. Clearly, this was unfortunate.

“The report discloses Mr English went to some lengths to arrange his affairs around the accommodation allowance entitlement. That is not a good look for a Minister of Finance.

“The Auditor-General’s advice does not even mention other issues that the Prime Minister still needs to consider: that Mr English was giving his Wellington address as his home for the purpose of being a director of a company (incidentally, the company that owns his Dipton investment), but claiming to live in Dipton for the purpose of receiving an accommodation allowance.

“A prudent minister might have noticed the contradiction between those two claims.

“I have always welcomed the idea of Mr English having his family with him in Wellington. That is not the issue. The question is whether he was right to claim entitlements for doing so.

“It would not have been in any way objectionable if Mr English had lived in Wellington with his family and claimed an out of town allowance for his occasional trips to Dipton,”
Jim Anderton said.

Nick Smith stigmatises families of suicide victims

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-10-15T13:50:30+13:00

Minister of ACC, Nick Smith says it was ‘a mistake and wrong’ for the last Labour-led government to support the families of suicide victims through ACC.

“Nick Smith should have the courage to say this directly to the families of suicide victims. It is yet another cowardly and insensitive comment from a Minister who is determined to further stigmatise these families,” says MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton.

Nick Smith apologised in parliament today for his comments on TVNZ News last night where he said that the terminally ill might as well ‘throw themselves under a train’ to get the same treatment for their own families as is available for the bereaved families of suicide victims.

“If the children or loved ones of a suicide victim don’t get our support through ACC, then where do they get it from? Is the Minister saying that they don’t deserve our support? Or is he saying that they should go on a sickness benefit?”

“When he said yesterday that the government’s ‘objective is to secure the long-term future of ACC as an efficient and fair 24/7, no-fault insurance scheme for all New Zealanders’, he clearly did not mean the families of suicide victims. He is effectively victimising these most vulnerable of New Zealanders.”

As the Minister in charge of suicide prevention programs in the last Labour/Progressive government, Jim Anderton introduced a program of support for families after a suicide (Postvention). This provided urgent counselling where needed to families, and victim support for those affected.

Nick Smith claims that it is necessary to cut support to the families of suicide victims because ACC has a huge deficit. He said if someone with a family committed suicide, that family could have been given almost $1 million in compensation over time.

“Yet the cost for ACC to give support to a family of three children on an average wage is less than $210,000 over five years. With approximately 350 claims per year, that is about $7 millions per year to all families of suicide victims who make an ACC claim.”

“That is a small cost to pay out of what Nick Smith claims is a $2 billion shortfall annually, to help some of the most vulnerable families in our community.”

Research and development: from Fast Forward to slow and slower...

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-10-20T09:04:54+13:00

Column for Canterbury Farmer

One of the strangest moments in the last election campaign was when the National party announced that it would abolish the Fast Forward Fund, and cut tax incentives for our most innovative businesses prepared to invest in research and development in agriculture.

Unfortunately the National-led government has kept that promise, and we're now facing a crisis in funding for research in the primary production sector.

Fast Forward came out of the 20/20 Summit I hosted as Minister of Agriculture at the end of 2007. A key recommendation of the gathering was to create a dedicated fund to finance research and development. The goal was to take each stage of production, from the production of the raw product on farms, to manufacturing and ultimately to markets here and overseas, and to add value at each stage.

In 2008 we announced the launch of the Fast Forward Fund with the intention of using it to catapult the New Zealand economy into the future.

We had a model where the funding was shared between government and the private sector. The Crown made a commitment to put $700 million up front into the fund which was matched by a similar amount from the private sector.

We had a joint Crown/private sector board to oversee the investment and the allocation of funds which was to have a life span of at least a decade to give certainty over a decent period of time.

The Fast Forward was placed under the management of three independent ‘Guardians’ who would invest it. Treasury and MAF estimated that the Fund plus interest would reach $2000M over a ten-year period.
The National-led Government cancelled the Fund.

The Fast Forward board had already held four meetings and was developing its overall strategy and the principles to be used to oversee the allocation to programmes and projects. Suddenly it was stopped and the initial investment from the government of $700 million plus $15 million of interest that it had earned, less the costs of getting it established, was returned.
Minister of Agriculture David Carter has replaced Fast Forward with the 'Primary Growth Partnership’ (PGP) which is apparently now 'up and running' with $30 million to spend in its first year and a total of $160M over the next three years.

Hon. Carter has yet to tell me how many research project proposals the PGP has received, nearly twelve months after Fast Forward was already working.

This is a huge opportunity lost. We are already facing a crisis in research and development. Meat & Wool New Zealand has announced it will stop any wool-related activities because of the loss of the wool levy in the recent referendum. This means there is no more money to fund the research and development of our wool based products.

The recently established Government Taskforce needs to give hope to the wool sector that there is a plan to increase the demand for our wool with a lift of prices for the producers, particularly for the coarse wool sector where research is so badly needed. Companies, like Ice Breaker using fine wool merino are already world leaders when it comes to making the most of research and development to expand their markets.

Finally, though, what the primary production sector really needs is not government taskforces; it needs money to fund research and development, and it needs the certainly of knowing that funds will not be taken away arbitrarily by politicians or government departments.

Iconic sports should be free to air

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-10-14T13:02:54+13:00

The government now reportedly has $8 million on the table to help TVNZ, Maori Television Service (MTS) and TV3 bid for the right to screen the Rugby World Cup, says MP for Wigram and Progressive leader Jim Anderton.

“Does it now accept the principal that all iconic sporting events should be free-to-air?”

Te Puni Kokiri (the Ministry for Maori Development) has funded the MTS bid by $3 million. The Government has allegedly freed up $5 million for a TVNZ and TV3 bid.

“$8 million would buy a lot of coverage for free-to-air sporting events.”

“We could buy the rights to screen the up-coming game between our national soccer team, the All-Whites who will play Bahrain to see if they qualify for the soccer World Cup next year in South Africa; as well as the rights for TVNZ to screen next year’s Commonwealth Games in Delhi.”

For the last forty yearsTVNZ has screened the Commonwealth Games.

“When TVNZ announced last month that it was seeking to offload its rights to broadcast the Commonwealth Games, the National Government refused to get involved, saying the arrangement was a commercial contract between TVNZ and Sky.”

“At the time Jonathan Coleman said the public could no longer expect major sporting events to be provided free on television.”

“What’s changed?”

Alcohol abuse more serious than methamphetamine

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-10-08T16:19:19+13:00

The abuse of alcohol is by far and away the most serious drug abuse we face in New Zealand, the former Associate Minister of Health in charge of the government’s drug policy, Jim Anderton said today.

“It is more serious than the abuse of methamphetamine, even though it is a deadly serious and unacceptable drug.

“The Prime Minister and his government’s first priority to prevent drug abuse in New Zealand is to take up the challenge posed by incidents of heavy drinking, which is now deeply imbedded in our culture, across all ages.

“The economic costs, the health costs, the costs to our justice and corrections systems and lost time off work as well as road deaths and serious injuries are calculated by reputable economists to cost New Zealand between two to three billion dollars a year,” Jim Anderton said.

“The National-led government has announced today that it is taking cold and flu medicines containing pseudoephedrine off our pharmacy counters. This means that those acting illegally have succeeded in removing our most effective cold and flu treatments while the majority of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine is illegally imported across our borders and not sold over pharmacy counters.

“Simon Power’s statement to the Hospitality Association, as the Minister of Justice and Commerce last Wednesday, that “I tend to view liquor law reform through a wide angle lens” does not fill me with confidence that the Law Commission’s recent “Alcohol in our Lives” Discussion Document will bring about the liquor law reform that New Zealand needs.

“The easy availability of alcohol, the lowering of the drinking age, and the influence of the alcohol industry on alcohol-control policy has turned our drinking culture into a pathological problem.

“The police know that this is an urgent issue. Between half and three-quarters of all police work is associated in some way with alcohol abuse.

“Sixty per cent of people arrested by the police are under the influence of alcohol at the time they commit the offence for which they are arrested. Alcohol abuse affects the community and people other than the drinker; forty per cent of all deaths and almost half of all other injuries from alcohol-related car crashes impact on those who have not been drinking at all.

”I call on the government to get serious about alcohol abuse.

“Reduce the availability of alcohol because research around the world has shown that there is a direct link between the availability of alcohol and the level of harm caused by alcohol. Increase the minimum age for buying alcohol to twenty years old; help communities reduce the proliferation of liquor retailers; and reduce the advertising of alcohol especially at sporting events,” Jim Anderton said today in Timaru

Jim Anderson is chairing a meeting tonight in Tïmaru: "Ten things the alcohol industry won't tell you about alcohol”. This meeting is one in a series of thirty eight being held around New Zealand, organised by Alcohol Action, with the presentation by Dr Doug Sellman, Director of the National Addiction Centre, and Professor of Psychiatry and Addiction Medicine at the University of Otago.

Water issues in Canterbury

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-09-20T16:39:45+12:00

Any farmer knows that water is one of their most valuable resources.
There is an alarming projection which shows that 3 billion people – half the world’s current population – could face a shortage of clean water by 2080 because of climate change. The amount of water needed by 2050 could be 50-90% higher than current use.
Farmers in Canterbury know about water shortage. In the seven years to 2006 there was a 49% increase in water allocated for irrigation in Canterbury. But the real issue for us in Canterbury is the storage of water. If we store it, we’ll have enough for everyone.
A great example of this is the Waimea dam in the Nelson region. I was there for the opening of this dam. It’s small enough not to offend anyone. It’s pleasantly tucked into the hill. But it services at least seventy farmers in the area. That’s seventy farms that won’t have to be sold because of drought and low productively.
The downstream effects on the communities around those farms are huge. Everyone benefits if these farms can keep producing. Jobs on farms are not lost. In fact more jobs are created. The increase in the local population means that schools stay open, banks and petrol stations continue to service the local area. And the environmentalists are happy because a small dam like this has positive effects on river flows. The natural environment is protected and the life of the river is sustained.
The alternative was a drought every five years which could mean farm closures and all the destruction and grief that closure causes families and communities.
Now the farmers serviced by the Waimea dam can expect a drought once in twenty years, which is survivable.
Most farmers can live with that.
What was most interesting was that the whole community supported the Waimea dam project. Because it was small, the environmental damage was virtually nil, so it was much easier to get different community groups on board with the project. Forest and Bird for example, and local institutions understood the importance of irrigation to farmers, and the difference storage of water could make. Keeping it small meant that they could support the project.
I believe this is a model for the whole of the Canterbury region.
Larger dam schemes are much harder to get buy-in from the community because the actual or perceived environmental effects are greater. Keep it small, and we have a chance to do something about water shortage.
I would rather see ten local dams built instead of one big one.
I’m pleased to see that our local mayors and chief executives are developing a Water Management Strategy that sets out a twenty year plan for water resources in Canterbury. I hope they look at the Waimea example and see the importance of storage. Sometimes the solutions are staring you in the face.

We have a drinking problem

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-10-05T16:14:00+13:00

There is a culture of romanticising heavy drinking in New Zealand. All-Blacks games and the Black Caps summer cricket series drip in alcohol promotion. But we act surprised when cricketer Jesse Ryder and rugby star Jimmy Cowan get into trouble for drinking too much. The community vilifies them, rather than the alcohol companies who sponsor the games and encourage young New Zealanders to go out do exactly that - drink to excess.

A leading alcohol researcher in the United Kingdom said that “Nations, like people, can develop a pathological pattern of alcohol misuse.” That’s what has happened in New Zealand. We already had a drinking culture, but the easy availability of alcohol, the lowering of the drinking age, and the influence of the alcohol industry on alcohol-control policy has turned that culture into a pathological problem.

We shouldn’t be surprised that teenage girls have drinking problems. They see the ads, and then they walk into dairies, local supermarkets and neighborhood liquor stores where they can buy alcohol anytime they want. No wonder our young teens have a booze problem

It’s hard to say it out loud: “We have a problem with alcohol abuse”. There are a lot of people who use alcohol responsibly, and they feel like their lifestyle is being criticised. But their drinking habits are not an issue. The culture of tolerating heavy drinking is the problem.

The police know all about it. While most of us are sleeping peacefully in our beds, they’re dealing with the violence on the streets; the doctors and nurses are patching people up in our hospitals and our councils clean up the mess before we get up in the morning.

So in case you slept through the drunken chaos during any weekend, here are some facts:

Between half and three-quarters of all police work is associated in some way with alcohol abuse.
Sixty per cent of people arrested by the police are under the influence of alcohol at the time they commit the offence for which they are arrested.
Researchers estimate that alcohol causes $2,400 million of harm each year.
Alcohol abuse affects the community and people other than the drinker; forty per cent of all deaths and almost half of all other injuries from alcohol-related car crashes are to ‘innocent victims’ who were not drinking.

The consequences of harmful drinking affect us all.

The next question is what we should do about it.

We need to reduce the availability of alcohol because research around the world has shown that there is a direct link between the availability of alcohol and the level of harm caused by alcohol.

We should increase the minimum age for buying alcohol to twenty years.

More needs to be done to help communities reduce the proliferation of liquor retailers.

The advertising of alcohol should be reduced, especially on television during the coverage of sport.

Give police much stronger tools for making pubs comply with the law. At the moment if they have serious concerns about license breaches, they have to wait until a license comes up for renewal. They should be able to do something straight away.

Most disturbing, is the continued promotion of alcohol to young people who don’t have as many choices available to them, are more likely to succumb to peer pressure and are susceptible to advertising.

We recognise there’s a problem, but then we put the fox in charge of the henhouse and expect the alcohol industry to police themselves and come up with the right policies to control alcohol consumption in our communities.

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 there is a big problem in our communities, and that we need a major culture change in our attitude to heavy drinking. That means we all have to do something, because we are all affected by the abuse of alcohol.

For more information on the “Ten things the alcohol industry won’t tell you about alcohol” and the timetable for the 38 meetings throughout New Zealand, go to www.alcoholaction.co.nz .

I am chairing the meeting in Timaru on the 8th October at Sopheze on the Bay, at 7.30pm. Get to one of the meetings if you can.

The Progressive Party will be writing a submission on New Zealand’s alcohol policies to the Law Commission’s report on alcohol. If you would like to do this too, post a submission to Liquor Project Co-ordinator, Law Commission, PO Box 2509, Wellington, by Friday 30th October 2009.

Coastguards prepare for their busy season.

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-09-25T18:01:48+12:00

“On an average day the Coastguard around New Zealand make ten rescues. That’s more than 3500 incidents a year, and over 5000 people a year who might not be with us today if it wasn’t for these volunteers,” says Progressive leader and MP for Wigram, Jim Anderton.

“These are just ordinary people with families and jobs, doing extraordinary things every day. And they do it for nothing. That kind of service is humbling.”

Jim Anderton was giving the key note speech at the annual Conference of the New Zealand Coastguard Association in Christchurch. He and his wife Carol are the official Patrons for the Canterbury Coastguard.

“It's easy for people to take this service for granted. But what would we do if we didn't have people around who give so much to helping out others?

“There are still New Zealand boaties out there who think they are indestructible; they don’t wear life jackets or carry rescue beacons. I know that many Coastguard volunteers would like to see more funding to spend on education, and there is a strong demand in the community for Coastguard boating education.

“That’s why I was very pleased last year to advocate in Cabinet with colleagues like Annette King, that a levy from petrol and diesel should be used to fund the work of the Coastguard service.

“They need all the funding they can get, and it doesn’t make sense for boaties filling their boats with fuel to pay a road tax.”

The Land Transport Management Act now allows for some of the fuel excise paid by boaties to be used to fund specified safety activities, most notably search and rescue.

“There are more than 2,500 of you across New Zealand. You are dedicated active volunteers who give over 300,000 hours of your time for free every year, and you are all heroes,” Jim Anderton said.

“Your service is an inspiration. New Zealanders owe you a debt of gratitude, and I wish you a successful and safe summer,” says Jim Anderton.

Coastguard conference 2009

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-09-25T18:00:07+12:00

Opening speech to the Royal New Zealand Coastguard Annual Conference 2009

As patrons of Canterbury Coastguard, Carole and I have much pleasure in being here for the annual conference of the NZ Coastguard.

I’ve been the Patron for the Canterbury Coastguard for a number of years. Each time I meet with you I’m struck again by your dedication and personal commitment to serve your fellow New Zealanders.

It’s people like you who keep voluntary organisations alive and running. This is not unimportant as your organisation also happens to save lives.

I’m sure you look at the way parliament is portrayed in the media and wonder if all politicians are driven by a similar desire to serve. I am reminded, in this regard, of a story I heard recently.

A priest was being honoured by the local coastguard at his retirement dinner after 25 years in the parish. The local MP who was also a member of his parish had been chosen to make the presentation and give a speech at the dinner.

The politician was delayed, so the priest decided to say his own few words while they waited. He said: "I got my first impression of this town from the first confession I heard here. I thought I had been assigned to a terrible place. The very first person who entered my confessional told me he had stolen money from some old, retired pensioners and when questioned by the police, he was able to lie his way out of it. He had also stolen money from his parents, embezzled from his former employer, and had an affair with his former boss's wife. I was appalled,” said the priest.

“But as the days went on I came to learn that most of the people were not like that at all and I had, indeed, come to a fine parish full of good and loving people, with a dedicated Coastguard service of the highest quality.”

Just as the priest finished his talk, the MP arrived full of apologies for being late. He immediately began to make the presentation by starting his speech.

"I'll never forget the first day our parish priest arrived," said the politician. "In fact, I had the honour of being the first person to go to him for confession.....”

It’s inspiring to read about some of your members who won the Coastguard National Awards in 2008, and to see some of the 2009 nominees here tonight.

It's easy for us to take your service for granted. But what would we do if we didn't have people around who give so much to helping others?

I’d like to pay tribute to the 2008 Award winners: Richard Packham from Rotorua; Chris Henshaw from Mana; and Rosie Musters from Nelson, and to the 2009 nominees.

All of you here are heroes. There are more than 2,500 members of the Coastguard across New Zealand. You are dedicated active volunteers who freely give over 300,000 hours of your time every year. You are ordinary people like the rest of us, holding down jobs and bringing up your families, but in your spare time, you do extraordinary things.

Rescuing people and keeping us safe in and on the water is not easy. I know you work long and irregular hours, you witness traumatic events, and each time you go out you put your own safety at risk to go to the aid often, of a total stranger.

These risks were brought home to me in March this year, when five crew members from the Coastguard vessel Tutukaka were injured when their rescue vessel struck rocks in bad weather.

You risk your lives all the time.

That’s why I was very pleased last year to advocate in Cabinet with colleagues like Annette King, that a levy from petrol and diesel used by recreational boaties should help fund the work of the Coastguard.

You need all the funding you can get, and it doesn’t make sense for boaties filling their boats with fuel to pay a road tax.

The hours that you spend helping to raise money; the effort that goes in to getting a boat like the new rescue vessel in Gisborne; the care and attention you have to give to administration; your commitment to having two people in your operations room 24 hours a day ... it all adds up.

I know that some of your members would like to see more funding to invest on community education. There is an urgent need for boating education to be given to the New Zealand community by the coastguard service.

People still go out in boats without life jackets, without rescue beacons, and in greater numbers than their boats or dinghys can handle safely.

As we head into summer, I’m sure you are gearing yourselves up for a busy time. Because for all your efforts to educate the public, in schools and at fishing tournaments, and throughout the community, people will still go out onto the water and get into trouble.

The tragic death of a child on Lake Taupo recently ignited a heated debate on whether we need licenses for boaties, just like we have licenses for car drivers. Certainly, we must keep the pressure up for boating education.

While the skill of our top yachties is world class, there is also a need for the fundamental skills of seamanship and boathandling to be spread more widely in the boating community.

There is still a large number of people who think nothing bad could ever happen to them.

New Zealanders love and treasure our oceans, lakes and rivers environment but we also need first class marine skills if we are to get the most out of our boating activities and be safe at the same time.

I was impressed to see how innovative you have been this year to raise awareness about safety: you used Trade Me to auction off rides across the Whanganui River bar on your super boat, Earthrace! I understand you had over 29,000 hits on TradeMe, and raised about $10,000.

Without you all we wouldn't have a Coastguard. And without the Coastguard, marine recreation and our Kiwi lifestyle on the water would be very different.

We're blessed with the marvellous coastline and waterways that we have in New Zealand.

We think of ourselves as a small country, because our population is small. But our coastline is enormous by global standards. And most of our coastline is readily accessible for pleasure craft as well as for commercial users.

It makes for a fantastic lifestyle. But it also inevitably makes for mishaps and accidents.

A lot of them are minor - people run out of fuel, get stranded or run across a minor problem. And the coastguard is there as a safety service to help them out.

Sometimes though, the mishaps are catastrophic. And then the help the Coastguard is able to provide is critical. It literally makes the difference between life and death, between recovery and tragedy.

On an average day the Coastguard around New Zealand makes ten rescues. That’s over 3500 incidents every year. And it’s potentially over 5600 people who may not be with us today if it wasn’t for you.

It's well known that one of the great privileges of living in Canterbury is that our weather conditions can be rugged at times. And whenever we hear of boats losing their way or needing help in those conditions, we also hear of brave coastguard efforts to help them.

For shift after shift, rescue teams from the Coastguard are going out into arduous cold and rough conditions hoping to make a rescue, knowing that when they come home, families will be waiting, desperate for good news.

That's what you're signing up to when you join the NZ Coastguard service and it is a heavy responsibility.

The New Zealand Coastguard Service helps to save lives and it's no wonder, therefore, that there is a special pride and sense of achievement in Coastguard volunteers as a result.

For all the work you do as volunteers in making our water safer, I want to express gratitude on behalf of the whole New Zealand community. It's a privilege to be here and for both Carole and I to be patrons of your local organisation. Carole and I congratulate you on your work over the last year and we congratulate and commend the people receiving recognition today and in the years gone by.

We wish you all the very best for the coming year.