<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" 
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
    xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd">
	<channel>
<title>Latest News RSS</title><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/index.html</link><description>Progressive News</description><dc:language>en-nz</dc:language><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><dc:rights>Copyright 2009 Jim Anderton&#x27;s Progressive Party</dc:rights><dc:date>2010-07-10T11:59:59+12:00</dc:date><admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://www.realmacsoftware.com/" />
<admin:errorReportsTo rdf:resource="mailto:contact@progressive.org.nz" /><sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
<sy:updateBase>2000-01-01T12:00+00:00</sy:updateBase>
<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:02:21 +1200</lastBuildDate><item><title>Translators and Interpreters</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Speeches</category><dc:date>2010-07-10T11:59:59+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/9647718ac668811a93ca4c41e9b72fb4-165.html#unique-entry-id-165</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/9647718ac668811a93ca4c41e9b72fb4-165.html#unique-entry-id-165</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[A warm welcome to Christchurch to those of you who have come to our city &ndash; particularly if it is your first visit. 


...You may or may not be aware that there&rsquo;s an election coming up in our city and I&rsquo;m standing to be the next Mayor of Christchurch. 

...I&rsquo;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. 

...As I was preparing for this speech today, it struck me that most New Zealanders are ignorant of the service you provide. 

...We need people like you to help us understand each other, and to help us trade with other countries.


But we don&rsquo;t just need people who speak different languages, we need professional interpreters and translators.


...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. 

...When we don&rsquo;t pay for it, bad things happen and people&rsquo;s rights are ignored. 

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


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


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. 

...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.


...I know that one of your challenges in a globalised world dominated by the internet, is on-line translation services. 

...Translated into German and then back into English, it comes out as: &lsquo;Company of the sea and land news of the translators and interpreters.


...Part of the challenge you face is to embrace that technology and make it work for you in a globalised market.


...These days you can translate material and send it back to clients across the world within a few hours via the internet. 

...Don&rsquo;t forget, there are other industries which are also facing the challenge of new technology. 

...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.


...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&rsquo;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. 

...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&rsquo;t like it, and I&rsquo;ll fight to keep those jobs in New Zealand and in Christchurch &ndash; 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.  

...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.


...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.


...Interpreting for people is a serious business and you don&rsquo;t want to get it wrong. 

...As luck would have it, a professional and accredited interpreter from New Zealand was in the saloon and translated the Ranger&rsquo;s message. 


...I&rsquo;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 &lsquo;right&rsquo; and &lsquo;wrong&rsquo; 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 &lsquo;Avatar.&rsquo; 

...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&rsquo;s been said that it takes just one generation to lose a language, and three generations to build it up again.


...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.


...I&rsquo;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&rsquo;t need your services, not least because we are a multicultural nation vitally dependent on world trade.


...Good luck for the future and thank you again for inviting me to be with you today.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Lowering the drink-drive limit is popular - why not do it?</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-07-28T15:43:38+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/1b29b8251f4e1a86d1810e2a6dca5c08-164.html#unique-entry-id-164</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/1b29b8251f4e1a86d1810e2a6dca5c08-164.html#unique-entry-id-164</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[&ldquo;This government is so desperate to be liked it&rsquo;ll make policy turns on anything unpopular, from Kiwibank and mining to foreign ownership of our land.   So why won&rsquo;t they follow the lead of 70% of New Zealanders who want to see the drink-drive limit lowered?&rdquo;   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&rsquo;s Close Up program last night found that 68% favoured lowering the limit.


&ldquo;The truth is the alcohol lobby has got to John Key&rsquo;s government and it has&rsquo;t got the guts to do what&rsquo;s right.&rdquo;


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


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


&ldquo;John Key&rsquo;s government has shoved the issue in the too hard basket for reasons it is difficult to fathom,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Anderton hands over agriculture portfolio</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-07-21T12:57:30+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/a8fc42fa2a92beed02639b1afac1fee9-163.html#unique-entry-id-163</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/a8fc42fa2a92beed02639b1afac1fee9-163.html#unique-entry-id-163</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader, Jim Anderton, today announced he is handing over the role of opposition agriculture spokesperson.


&ldquo;I want to give someone else the opportunity to get up to speed before next year&rsquo;s election, given that I won&rsquo;t be standing again,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said.


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


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&rsquo;s economic strategy after it had been demoted to a &lsquo;sunset industry&rsquo; 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&rsquo;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.


&ldquo;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&rsquo;s dreaming


&ldquo;I will continue to advocate for agricultural issues,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>National Government has no ideas</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Speeches</category><dc:date>2010-07-21T17:54:17+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/7787f5aa176877272f1e328514c83c5d-162.html#unique-entry-id-162</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/7787f5aa176877272f1e328514c83c5d-162.html#unique-entry-id-162</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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. 

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


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


...Don Brash failed to deliver - no surprises there - as the Kiwi kid says about the Aussie kid on that TV ad.


But Don&rsquo;s still being kept on to give another report next year! 


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


...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&rsquo;s almost returned to what it was under the last National government


...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.


...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?


...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 &lsquo;sell&rsquo; your annual leave. 


In my book, it&rsquo;s just working for an extra week and getting paid for it! 

...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? 


...Tourist industries were meant to pop up all along the cycle way.


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


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


Mining is now meant to save the New Zealand economy.


...Another flip-flop because this smiling Prime Minister doesn&rsquo;t want to be unpopular.


...If John Key and his government were serious about growing the economy, they wouldn&rsquo;t just pay lip service to the the farming sector.


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


And yet John Key didn&rsquo;t mention farming in 2008 in the post-election speech from the throne. 


Didn&rsquo;t mention it in 2009 in his speech in parliament at the beginning of the year.


...If he thinks he can grow the New Zealand economy while ignoring the farming sector and building cycle ways  - he&rsquo;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&rsquo;t have to be a rocket scientist to see that the farming sector belongs at the centre of any government&rsquo;s economic strategy.


...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. 

...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. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Kiwibank will get downgraded if sold&#x2c; says credit rating agency</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-05-27T18:13:28+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/43e558b35999020c8abfdb7543a0c7d4-161.html#unique-entry-id-161</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/43e558b35999020c8abfdb7543a0c7d4-161.html#unique-entry-id-161</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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&nbsp;Kiwibank are equalized with the bank's wholly government-owned parent&nbsp;New Zealand Post Ltd. ...  The ratings on the bank get a&nbsp;significant uplift from the bank's stand-alone credit profile due to an&nbsp;unconditional and irrevocable guarantee from the parent.   Consequently,&nbsp;any change in the bank's ownership--which would likely be accompanied by&nbsp;a dilution in the parent guarantee--would be a possible trigger for&nbsp;rating review."


Jim Anderton says this means that if Bill English and John Key don't rule out selling Kiwibank, it will be downgraded.&nbsp;


"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&rsquo;s about to cost  costing Kiwi families money.


&ldquo;What is there about the almost universally negative publicity following Bill English&rsquo;s speculative comments about the sale of Kiwibank that this government does not understand?&rdquo;   says Jim Anderton.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Nats back to weasel words on Kiwibank</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-06-09T18:11:41+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/bb4ea8f3f0b93bfffa0e7b476159c4a2-160.html#unique-entry-id-160</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/bb4ea8f3f0b93bfffa0e7b476159c4a2-160.html#unique-entry-id-160</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[&ldquo;Is Steven Joyce planning a leadership coup?   Only days after John Key backed down and clarified that Kiwibank will never be sold while he&rsquo;s Prime Minister, Steven Joyce announced this morning that if he&rsquo;s going to sell it, he&rsquo;ll tell you in time for the next election,&rdquo; says Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.


&ldquo;Who&rsquo;s he going to tell?   John Key or the country?&rdquo;


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&rsquo;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&rsquo;s Darren Hughes on Newstalk ZB&rsquo;s Mike Hoskings breakfast show this morning.


When asked about Kiwibank he said that from his point of view &ldquo;we&rsquo;ve said we won&rsquo;t change anything, and if we did we&rsquo;d go to the country.&rdquo;


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


&ldquo;That&rsquo;s a lot of points of view.   Who should we be listening to now?&rdquo;   says Jim Anderton.


&ldquo;One thing is crystal clear.   The National party are not united on this issue.   The &lsquo;rat-pack&rsquo; want to sell, doesn&rsquo;t matter what John Key says,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton.


Steven Joyce also said when pushed further about Kiwibank  &ldquo;the reality is that nothing&rsquo;s changed; we haven&rsquo;t even asked for any work to be done, but if we do it&rsquo;ll be in time for the next election.&rdquo;


&ldquo;Who can honestly believe John Key&rsquo;s promise never to sell Kiwibank now?&rdquo;   says Jim Anderton.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Money still not flowing out of R&#x26;D fund</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-05-27T18:00:50+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/f5b69296f52097566b0aaa23e5b96a57-159.html#unique-entry-id-159</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/f5b69296f52097566b0aaa23e5b96a57-159.html#unique-entry-id-159</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[&ldquo;What money?   It&rsquo;s taken this government eighteen months to say it is allocating $3.9 million to research projects.   But it hasn&rsquo;t given anyone a cent yet,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton MP for Wigram.


The Primary Growth Partnership replaced the Labour-Progressive government&rsquo;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.


&ldquo;Don&rsquo;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.


&ldquo;This is the problem when you tie up innovative business investment decisions in red tape.   The Fast Forward Fund was part &lsquo;owned&rsquo; 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. 


&ldquo;Now, even when decisions are made to proceed, businesses are being told to sit back and be patient while &lsquo;milestones&rsquo; are being delivered and strategy papers written to help  decide when to release funds.   Here&rsquo;s a few &lsquo;milestones&rsquo; 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&rsquo;s a still a delay while more paper work is done.


&ldquo;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,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Maori Commercial Aquaculture Bill</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Speeches</category><dc:date>2010-03-25T17:58:44+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/cf572d6696c02bc9fa00574407544a34-158.html#unique-entry-id-158</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/cf572d6696c02bc9fa00574407544a34-158.html#unique-entry-id-158</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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 &ldquo;pre-commencement space&rdquo;, that is aquaculture space that was approved between 1992 and 2005.   As Minister of Fisheries from 2005 &ndash; 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&rsquo;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&rsquo;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&rsquo;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.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Progressive Party Update</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-06-27T15:08:22+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/6f8cbe80a62f42ad90cecee37fd59f2c-157.html#unique-entry-id-157</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/6f8cbe80a62f42ad90cecee37fd59f2c-157.html#unique-entry-id-157</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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.


&ldquo;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,&rdquo; 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.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Now NZ Post on the block</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-06-08T16:28:32+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/8aaf82928067a5e33a2b8c6e30b72d55-156.html#unique-entry-id-156</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/8aaf82928067a5e33a2b8c6e30b72d55-156.html#unique-entry-id-156</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Desperation to sell something or anything is the only way to explain the prime ministers&rsquo; declaration that Kiwibank won&rsquo;t be sold but NZ Post might be, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.


&ldquo;The Prime Minister is now once again saying Kiwibank won&rsquo;t be sold while he is leader.&nbsp;


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.


&ldquo;In making his statement about Kiwibank today, Mr Key announced on radio that it is &lsquo;technically&rsquo; or &lsquo;theoretically&rsquo; possible that NZ Post will be sold.


&ldquo;That&rsquo;s like being technically or theoretically pregnant.   Either National is going to sell NZ Post or it isn&rsquo;t.&nbsp;


&ldquo;Mr Key is using sneaky language.   He should simply say National won&rsquo;t sell NZ Post.   It does a good job in pubic ownership.


&ldquo;Rural communities in particular will lose their services or they will cost more if John Key sells NZ Post.&rdquo;


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


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;The watchdog is applying a different standard to the prime minister by refusing to make the same clarification today,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Key Should Stop Playing Personal Politics And Come Clean On Kiwibank</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-06-04T03:40:15+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/9b73d6db18ff28ff020ec6d5c5ec045d-155.html#unique-entry-id-155</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/9b73d6db18ff28ff020ec6d5c5ec045d-155.html#unique-entry-id-155</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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. &nbsp;  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.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Japan PM resigns over broken promise - why not Key?</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-06-03T15:34:35+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/af6f1f2aebdabcdf56b25557967bfaf2-154.html#unique-entry-id-154</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/af6f1f2aebdabcdf56b25557967bfaf2-154.html#unique-entry-id-154</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[&ldquo;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&rsquo;s world,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader.


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


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


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.


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


&ldquo;That means Kiwibank is only safe for another 12-18 months.   Then the &lsquo;for sale&rsquo; sign goes up.&rdquo;


&ldquo;John Key made a pledge to resign if he broke his promise not to touch superannuation.&rdquo;


&ldquo;When is a John Key promise not a promise?   When it&rsquo;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.


&ldquo;John Key should give New Zealanders a list of all the promises he&rsquo;s made.   Tell people now which ones he intends to keep, and which promises he intends to break,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Nats cynical games over Kiwibank sale</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-06-03T15:33:05+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/d95fd5593802f77bb1d083683c23c846-153.html#unique-entry-id-153</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/d95fd5593802f77bb1d083683c23c846-153.html#unique-entry-id-153</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[&ldquo;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,&rdquo; 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,&rdquo; 


&ldquo;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.


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


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;I wonder how those people feel now?&rdquo;


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


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;John Key&rsquo;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.


&ldquo;&lsquo;Ever - is a short word and a short time in John Key&rsquo;s world.&rdquo;


&ldquo;This is the kind of cynical politics that brings governments down,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>John Key promised not to sell Kiwibank &#x27;ever&#x27;</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-06-02T16:17:09+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/2b9fa57a8e5bc72db2454afd69175694-152.html#unique-entry-id-152</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/2b9fa57a8e5bc72db2454afd69175694-152.html#unique-entry-id-152</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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.


&ldquo;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&rsquo; questions in The Dominion Post 22 October 2008: 


&ldquo;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?&rdquo;   (Carol Aldridge, Porirua)


&lsquo;I am ruling out selling Kiwibank at any point in the future.&rsquo;   John Key


The Dominion Post 4 November 2008, following TV3 leaders' debate &ndash; 5 days before the election:


&ldquo;Mr Key said he would not sell Kiwibank - and when asked if that meant &lsquo;ever&rsquo; responded: &lsquo;No, I&rsquo;ve ruled it out&rsquo;.&rdquo;


The Press 4 November 2008


&ldquo;John Key ruled out National selling Kiwibank at any stage &lsquo;never....we&rsquo;ve ruled it out.&rsquo;&rdquo;


Jim Anderton says: &ldquo;John Key&rsquo;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.


&ldquo;Shares in Kiwibank should not be floated because it&rsquo;s doing a great job.   It&rsquo;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?&rdquo;   says Jim Anderton.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Telecom share decline is a lesson for privatising government</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-05-25T15:50:48+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/398deebcd3ad116c4f75fde6960ff436-151.html#unique-entry-id-151</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/398deebcd3ad116c4f75fde6960ff436-151.html#unique-entry-id-151</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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."
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>National&#x27;s threat to sell Kiwibank</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-05-21T16:18:14+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/156729535958554d766d22603369d080-150.html#unique-entry-id-150</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/156729535958554d766d22603369d080-150.html#unique-entry-id-150</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[National&rsquo;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. 


&ldquo;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.


 &ldquo;Kiwibank is a huge success, mainly because it&rsquo;s ours.   Selling the bank would push it straight into overseas hands.   The buyers would be the Australian banks.


&ldquo;Hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders signed up to Kiwibank because it&rsquo;s ours.   Since Kiwibank opened, the other banks have stopped closing branches and increasing fees.   They&rsquo;re feeling the heat.   And that&rsquo;s good for Kiwis.


&ldquo;National repeatedly promised not to sell Kiwibank,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said.


&ldquo;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.&rdquo;]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Canterbury people told to shut up and pay up</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-05-21T12:15:47+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/80a082e63090738918a296fe2c294c4f-149.html#unique-entry-id-149</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/80a082e63090738918a296fe2c294c4f-149.html#unique-entry-id-149</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[&ldquo;Unelected commissioners running the regional council are telling Canterbury people to &lsquo;shut up&rsquo; about democracy when it comes to submissions - they don&rsquo;t want to hear about it,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton, MP for Wigram.


Jim Anderton has obtained documents from the Riccarton Residents&rsquo; Association which show that the Commissioners are writing to submitters saying they will not hear submissions on &ldquo;accountability through elected representatives&rdquo;.


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.


&ldquo;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,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton.


&ldquo;To tell residents of Canterbury who wish to make submissions on achieving the earliest possible return to elected democracy to ECan that &lsquo;your views will be noted but not heard,&rsquo; is the height of arrogance.


&ldquo;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.  


&ldquo;Now the ECan Commissioners are taking away the one chance for Canterbury people to have their say on this issue,&rdquo; 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.  


&ldquo;The Government has said that there will be no elections for up to three and a half years.   So why can&rsquo;t local people and organisations not submit their views on why they think elections should be held in 12 months, or 18 months?&rdquo;]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Jim Anderton&#x27;s Budget 2010 speech</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Speeches</category><dc:date>2010-05-20T16:49:55+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/d49e3ee4f15511d176f0d1745b90fbed-148.html#unique-entry-id-148</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/d49e3ee4f15511d176f0d1745b90fbed-148.html#unique-entry-id-148</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[What is this government saying to families on low incomes in today&rsquo;s budget?


...It says &lsquo;don&rsquo;t worry about an increase in GST and rising food prices, because the rich eat more than the poor, so they&rsquo;ll pay more in GST.&rsquo;


...You might not be able to afford to buy much food - but just think of the GST you&rsquo;re saving when you don&rsquo;t eat?


The rich have a choice if they want to spend more money and pay more GST. 

...What is John Key saying to New Zealand families struggling to pay the bills and make ends meet on low incomes? 

...Are New Zealand families more or less equal after this budget?


...After today&rsquo;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&rsquo;s CEO who earned $7 million last year will get a tax cut of $6,608 per week.   State sector CEO&rsquo;s who earn more than $600,000 in some cases, will get a tax cut of nearly $500 per week.


If you&rsquo;re earning $50,000 after you pay more in GST at the supermarket, you&rsquo;ll only take home $5 per week. 

...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.


...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. ...  At the same time, New Zealand&rsquo;s increasing rate of income inequality became one of the worst in the OECD. 


...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 - &ldquo;income gaps between rich and poor...became worse under the previous Labour Government".


...It became better, and is set to become worse again under this National government. 

...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. 

...The Prime Minister also said yesterday that it was a terrible injustice that 10% of the wealthiest New Zealanders pay 44% of the tax. 

...Those who earn more, pay more tax, because they earn a higher share of the income. 

...Will the average New Zealander be better off after the Sheriff&rsquo;s budget? 

...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. ...  If they&rsquo;re on an average income but had aspirations to do better - forget it.


...Will there be more children lifted out of poverty after today&rsquo;s budget?    

...Greece&rsquo;s economy is collapsing and the streets are on fire as people protest - but they&rsquo;re way ahead of New Zealand when it comes to looking after children!


Here&rsquo;s what a respected Professor of Epidemiology in New Zealand said recently &ldquo;In New Zealand, social injustice is killing and maiming our children on a grand scale&rdquo; 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.


...That rate started to decline under the last Labour Progressive government for the first time in decades. 

...Because at the same time, Australia&rsquo;s unemployment has dropped to just over 5%. 


...If John Key thinks that cutting the top tax rate will stop young doctors or entrepreneurs going overseas, he&rsquo;s dreaming.   Australia&rsquo;s top tax rate is 45 cents in the dollar - much higher than New Zealand&rsquo;s.


New Zealand&rsquo;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.


...The wealthy few who get a hefty tax cut today will most likely invest the extra cash overseas. 


...John Key has scrapped the $2 billion worth of spending on R&D that we had set aside under a Labour-Progressive government. 

...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. 


...The larger the tax cut National gives to the top income earners, the smaller the amount left over for people on the average wage. 

...Some voted for this government because they thought the Prime Minister&rsquo;s &lsquo;rags to riches&rsquo; 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.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Let them eat cake&#x21;</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-05-20T16:44:49+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/c9d1094f408281988b064487875f1e33-147.html#unique-entry-id-147</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/c9d1094f408281988b064487875f1e33-147.html#unique-entry-id-147</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The gap between rich and poor is set to widen after today&rsquo;s budget, says Jim Anderton MP for Wigram.


&ldquo;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%.


&ldquo;What is this government saying to families on lower incomes in today&rsquo;s budget?   &lsquo;Let them eat cake!&rsquo;   It says &lsquo;don&rsquo;t worry about an increase in GST and rising food prices, because the rich consume more than the poor, so they&rsquo;ll pay more in GST.   Is that meant to make low income families feel better?   &lsquo;You might not be able to afford to buy much food - but just think of the GST you&rsquo;re saving when you don&rsquo;t eat?&rsquo;


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;New Zealand&rsquo;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.&rdquo; 


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. 


&ldquo;Here&rsquo;s what a respected Professor of Epidemiology in New Zealand said recently &lsquo;In New Zealand, social injustice is killing and maiming our children on a grand scale.&rsquo;   Nothing in this budget is going to change that.


&ldquo;If you voted for this government because you thought John Key&rsquo;s &lsquo;rag to riches&rsquo; story might rub off on the country, now you know he is no Robin Hood - more a Sheriff of Nottingham&rdquo;, Jim Anderton said today.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Odyssey House 25th Anniversary</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Speeches</category><dc:date>2010-05-07T12:29:44+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/a230479e08846b062a95696d9254defc-146.html#unique-entry-id-146</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/a230479e08846b062a95696d9254defc-146.html#unique-entry-id-146</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Odyssey House Trust has been successfully providing treatment in Christchurch for nearly 25 years. 

...They already had an Odyssey House in Auckland, opened by Fraser McDonald in 1980 who was an enlightened pioneer in mental health treatment and it is important to remember people like him today.


The tag line for Odyssey House in Auckland is &ldquo;Never Give Up Hope&rdquo; and I know that people here in Christchurch have never given up.


It can be a challenge, campaigning against drug and alcohol abuse.


...But there&rsquo;s hardly a family in New Zealand that hasn&rsquo;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. 

...But if, like me and Professor Doug Sellman, and you openly campaign to raise the drinking age to 20 for example, you&rsquo;re accused of stopping people having a good time and being a wowser.


I&rsquo;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. 

...As many of you know, I&rsquo;ve also campaigned to curb drug abuse. 

...So now there&rsquo;s an ad running on the radio which promotes the latest legal party pill, and it starts off by saying: &ldquo;Don&rsquo;t let Uncle Jim ruin the Party!&rdquo;


Apparently, last week, I&rsquo;ve discovered I have a new nick-name in one of the university magazines: &lsquo;Jim BANderton.&rsquo;   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 &ndash; but, of course, alcohol is also a drug &ndash; the most serious drug affecting the lives of New Zealanders.


...We need a culture change - where binge drinking isn&rsquo;t tolerated and regular drug use isn&rsquo;t seen as a &lsquo;normal&rsquo; way to have a good time.


My 6 year old godson plays ripper rugby, and it&rsquo;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&rsquo;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&rsquo;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&rsquo;s budget. 


A new residential facility at Odyssey House wasn&rsquo;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. 

...You have shown that this community cares enough to give people a second chance.   I&rsquo;ve heard stories from graduates of Odyssey who when they arrive, had given up on life. 

...Here&rsquo;s what one young woman said about the staff: &ldquo;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 &ndash; mentally ill and grossly addicted to alcohol or drugs. 

...Gradually she accepted that the staff were genuine and she decided to &ldquo;give it a shot&rdquo;.


This young woman is now studying for a Bachelor of Alcohol & Drug Studies at WelTec. 

...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.


...Today, the community is still at the heart of the Odyssey House model. 

...Another example I read about was a 47 year old who said Odyssey House had &ldquo;ruined&rdquo; his career - his criminal career! 


...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. 

...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&rsquo;s another quote from an Odyssey House graduate: &ldquo;I can&rsquo;t say enough about Odyssey. 

...That&rsquo;s what you are doing every day at Odyssey House Christchurch; you are giving people back their lives. 

...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. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>How does cutting top tax rate cut make super more affordable?</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-05-04T16:32:18+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/60e24d5deed3505b83a78a6063d7901c-145.html#unique-entry-id-145</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/60e24d5deed3505b83a78a6063d7901c-145.html#unique-entry-id-145</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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&rsquo;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 &lsquo;the net amount provided from public funds for a retired person should reduce as that person&rsquo;s total income increases&rsquo;.


That principle could be met by a surcharge on superannuation or by a progressive income tax scale.


&ldquo;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 &lsquo;the net amount provided from public funds for a retired person should reduce as that person&rsquo;s total income increases&rsquo;?


&ldquo;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&rsquo;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.&rdquo;


Jim Anderton&rsquo;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.


&ldquo;The future cost of super is affordable, but the government needs to keep the means to afford it&rdquo;, Jim Anderton said.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Tobacco Excise bill</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Speeches</category><dc:date>2010-05-04T10:16:19+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/068e4c5d6894af008aedfa7ffef8c51d-144.html#unique-entry-id-144</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/068e4c5d6894af008aedfa7ffef8c51d-144.html#unique-entry-id-144</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Jim Anderton&rsquo;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. ...  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. ...  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. ...  It may well be disastrous for the teeth of the children who are drinking it &ndash; and it is &ndash; but nevertheless, because it is cheap, people buy it. 


...I have to say, however, that just 24 hours ago, within minutes of the Law Commission&rsquo;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 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. ...  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. 

...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. 


...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.


...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? ...  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. ...  It is a very serious health risk, and the jury is coming in on that all the time. 


...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. 


...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 &ndash; when was that, 1990?


...She did not have too much support then, but now it is the brave thing to do. 

...The brave Government will take on the &lsquo;on the ropes&rsquo; 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.


...Absolutely, it will but we have no courage from the Government on this issue. 

...As for the Government&rsquo;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. ...  He admitted that every single thing in the alcohol legislation that he agrees with is a vested interest of the industry. 


...He said: &ldquo;Yes, it is a vested interest of the industry. 

...The interviewer asked him whether there was anything thing that was not a vested interest among the measures he agreed with.  ...  He had to meet the representatives of the industry seven times, and he was not sure what they meant.


...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. 

...It would have been an act of at least some responsibility to do that yesterday. ...  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.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Deal with alcohol ads to deal with binge drinking culture</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-04-27T17:59:45+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/0df56a321adc064b7e64c3a112b12194-143.html#unique-entry-id-143</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/0df56a321adc064b7e64c3a112b12194-143.html#unique-entry-id-143</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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&rsquo;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.


&ldquo;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&rsquo;s 1350 a week.


&ldquo;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.&rdquo;


&ldquo;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&rsquo;s attitudes to alcohol.


&ldquo;It&rsquo;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.


&ldquo;Here&rsquo;s what the alcohol industry won&rsquo;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. 


&ldquo;Former Progessive MP Matt Robson&rsquo;s private members bill called for alcohol advertising on TV to be moved from 8.30pm to 10pm.   I&rsquo;d like to see alcohol sponsorship of sports games banned.   We did it for smoking.   You don&rsquo;t have Benson & Hedges sponsoring tennis games anymore.   We should do the same for alcohol sponsorships,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Government favours alcohol industry</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-04-22T17:26:13+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/9b32eade8ca9922c6f295b3d7cf57df3-142.html#unique-entry-id-142</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/9b32eade8ca9922c6f295b3d7cf57df3-142.html#unique-entry-id-142</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Minister responsible for the government&rsquo;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&rsquo;t like a drink of wine at a wedding. 


&ldquo;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,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said. 


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;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. 


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


	&bull;	Alcohol is a highly intoxicating drug which is fairly easy to overdose on 


	&bull;	Alcohol can cause brain damage 


	&bull;	Alcohol causes aggression 


	&bull;	Alcohol is fattening in social drinkers 


	&bull;	Alcohol can cause cancer  


	&bull;	Alcohol cardio-protection has been talked up 


	&bull;	The alcohol industry actively markets alcohol to young people  


	&bull;	Low risk drinking means drinking low amounts of alcohol  


	&bull;	A lot of the alcohol industry&rsquo;s profit comes from heavy drinking


	&bull;	There is a solution to the national alcohol crisis: &lsquo;The 5+ Solution&rsquo;. 


&ldquo;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&rsquo;s 60 Minutes has analysed each meeting on his blog.


&ldquo;Most of these meetings were nothing to do with alcohol regulation.


&ldquo;23 were with Ministry of Health officials or ALAC &ndash; both of whom report to him &ndash; 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.


&ldquo;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.


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


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


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;He did have some meetings with groups other than the alcohol industry.   But not 47, and these meetings cannot be described a lobbying,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Support for changes to alcohol law</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-04-22T17:24:52+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/85aa6b0d279cae2af83827570ccd8f53-141.html#unique-entry-id-141</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/85aa6b0d279cae2af83827570ccd8f53-141.html#unique-entry-id-141</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[If the reports are accurate, Jim Anderton calls on the government to act on the leaked Law Commission&rsquo;s recommendations on alcohol controls, which appear to include a call to increase the drinking age to twenty and restrict the availability of alcohol.


&ldquo;However I&rsquo;m not hopeful that with a Minister like Peter Dunne responsible for alcohol the government will have the guts to do anything this brave,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton.


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;He said he didn&rsquo;t meet with Mr Sellman or his colleagues because he &lsquo;knows what they think.&rsquo; 


&ldquo;So he had to meet with the alcohol industry on numerous occasions to understand what they thought?&rdquo;


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;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.&rdquo;


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.


&ldquo;The spotlight is on the government now to see if they will have the courage to act,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Speeches</category><dc:date>2010-04-21T15:22:57+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/f15662b7dfcf2fe2cf7a1e3fb2ee7718-140.html#unique-entry-id-140</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/f15662b7dfcf2fe2cf7a1e3fb2ee7718-140.html#unique-entry-id-140</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Jim Anderton&rsquo;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&rsquo; 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. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Affordable dental care within reach for all Kiwis</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-04-23T20:21:35+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/ade0acd2260fab146f3be8244c4cb1c0-139.html#unique-entry-id-139</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/ade0acd2260fab146f3be8244c4cb1c0-139.html#unique-entry-id-139</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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.


&ldquo;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,&rdquo; 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.


&ldquo;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,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton.


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;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&rsquo;ve already targeted the under 18s.   Other vulnerable groups include retired New Zealanders and pregnant mothers.


&ldquo;Unfortunately under this National government there isn&rsquo;t the political will to do anything about dental care.   Tony Ryall has removed oral health completely, as a health target.&rdquo;


&ldquo;Funding required for a subsidised system could be raised either through income tax, or by a small ACC type earner&rsquo;s levy, in return for a lifetime of free or affordable dental treatment.   Research into options continues, in consultation with the dental industry,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>The State of the Nation&#x27;s teeth</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Speeches</category><dc:date>2010-04-23T20:18:32+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/dd60c6ff00e717c89fb1f52d0925c68b-138.html#unique-entry-id-138</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/dd60c6ff00e717c89fb1f52d0925c68b-138.html#unique-entry-id-138</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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 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.


...We&rsquo;ll know more about who is or isn&rsquo;t seeing the dentist later this year when the results of a nationwide survey of the nation&rsquo;s teeth are released. 


This is the first time in twenty years that we&rsquo;ve done a survey like this. 

...There&rsquo;s some good news though; the last Labour and Progressive government extended free dental care to all kids under 18 years.


...She extended the under 18&rsquo;s scheme to cover kids who were not at school or enrolled at a dentist. 

...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. 

...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.


...I&rsquo;d like to thank all of you here (and those who are absent) for your huge efforts in making Annette King&rsquo;s policy decision in parliament a reality. 


...We made history when New Zealand was the first country in the world to establish the School Dental Service, 90 years ago.


...My advice from the Ministry of Health this week is that although it&rsquo;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.  

...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.


...But in the case of Llew I have to admit that smoking saved his life - and helped create the School Dental Service.


...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&rsquo;t bode well for his future or the future of our community dental health services. 

...But he&rsquo;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.


...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. 

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


...Grey Power branches across the country have been in touch; The New Zealand Dental Therapists&rsquo; Association, the Nurses Organisation and many other organisations and individuals have also shown their support. 

...When they do finally turn up at the dentists, the problems can be so big it&rsquo;s almost impossible and too costly to treat them. ...  But we also have to incentivise them to go to the dentist, and get them used to looking after their own teeth. 

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


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


...Although the 0-5 age group is entitled to free dental care, some new mothers are not aware of this.


...I&rsquo;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.


...It&rsquo;s not fair, but it&rsquo;s a fact of life, that as you get older, the care of your teeth and gums becomes a bigger problem. 

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


...Just like I believed that we could have our own New Zealand owned bank - Kiwibank - when everyone told me it couldn&rsquo;t be done.


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


...We could raise this money either through income tax, or through a small ACC type earner&rsquo;s levy in return for a life time of free or affordable dental treatment.


...It&rsquo;s possible, it&rsquo;s affordable and it&rsquo;s a social tragedy that half our population doesn&rsquo;t get the dental care they need.


...But when you look back at the milestones in dental care over the last 90 years, it hasn&rsquo;t been politicians who have led the call for affordable care. 

...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&rsquo;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&rsquo;t have been able to win the argument in parliament to extend free dental care to all under 18 year olds.


She wouldn&rsquo;t have been able to bring back the training of dental therapists, central to Llew&rsquo;s dream of free dental care for children.


...You have to go out there and create the political will to make affordable care a reality for all New Zealanders. 

...That&rsquo;s the only way we will realise Llew&rsquo;s dream, 90 years ago, of an affordable, high quality dental care system within the reach of every New Zealander.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Beer in a can recipe for trouble</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-04-02T16:27:50+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/4e41d429a816aecab95e4882678d0988-137.html#unique-entry-id-137</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/4e41d429a816aecab95e4882678d0988-137.html#unique-entry-id-137</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The police don&rsquo;t want it; rugby fans don&rsquo;t need it; and I don&rsquo;t like it.   Selling beer in cans at the Rugby World Cup could damage our international reputation.   It is not worth the risk,&rdquo; 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. 


&ldquo;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. 


&ldquo;This is our moment in the world spotlight.   We won&rsquo;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. 


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;The only people who benefit from cans at games is Heineken.   They get their branding on every can.   They wouldn&rsquo;t if beer was served in plastic cups.


&ldquo;The National government is prioritising the business needs of a beer company over New Zealand&rsquo;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&rsquo;s head,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Rugby song sounds like beer ad from the 1990s</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-04-02T16:26:41+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/35d808aef97fdee66622049f7b3fc56b-136.html#unique-entry-id-136</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/35d808aef97fdee66622049f7b3fc56b-136.html#unique-entry-id-136</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[&ldquo;I would like to nominate Gary McCormick for New Zealand&rsquo;s poet laureate because of his determination to campaign against the Rugby World Cup&rsquo;s choice of theme song &ndash; an English song that sounds like an old beer ad from the 1990s,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton.


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


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


&ldquo;We can&rsquo;t blame Australia for promoting our musicians like Crowded House as their own, when we don&rsquo;t even promote our own talent.&rdquo;


The Rugby World Cup has chosen &lsquo;Right Here, Right Now&rsquo; 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. 


&ldquo;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? 


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


&ldquo;In the meantime, I&rsquo;ll be joining Gary McCormick and calling for a Kiwi song,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Government cancels democracy in Canterbury</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-03-30T16:06:12+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/f3ea54b8d174e3eb8173172cb5bfdf32-135.html#unique-entry-id-135</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/f3ea54b8d174e3eb8173172cb5bfdf32-135.html#unique-entry-id-135</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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.


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;If this is how the government proposes to solve the water crisis in Canterbury, then I have grave concerns,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton.


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;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,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>ACC&#x2019;s unlawful stealth policy change</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-03-30T16:30:52+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/532b65ddb02a7d13ced0b359863b15a8-134.html#unique-entry-id-134</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/532b65ddb02a7d13ced0b359863b15a8-134.html#unique-entry-id-134</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[People who are injured are having their claims ruled out because of a stealth policy change at ACC that the government won&rsquo;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.


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;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.&rdquo;


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&rsquo;t afford the cost of formal review and court cases.


Jim Anderton says the government has no satisfactory explanation for the sudden increase. 


&ldquo;There must have been a policy change.   According to some of the best surgeons and specialists many of the &lsquo;pre-existing conditions&rsquo; 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,&rdquo; 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. 


	&bull;	ACC does not capture data on &lsquo;pre-existing degeneration&rsquo;, as a decline of cover classification,


	&bull;	ACC does not capture data on the proportion of claims for treatment of shoulder injuries that have been declined due to a finding of &lsquo;pre-existing degeneration&rsquo;,


	&bull;	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 &lsquo;pre-existing degenerative&rsquo; condition,


	&bull;	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 &lsquo;pre-existing degenerative&rsquo; condition,


	&bull;	ACC does not keep data on the average legal costs of defending court decisions relating to the presence of a &lsquo;pre-existing degenerative&rsquo; condition,]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Changing ACC policy by stealth&#xa;</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Columns</category><dc:date>2010-03-29T08:01:08+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/36a74c21e2a5c1c3f981025efa1e665b-133.html#unique-entry-id-133</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/36a74c21e2a5c1c3f981025efa1e665b-133.html#unique-entry-id-133</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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&rsquo;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&rsquo;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 &lsquo;pre-existing condition.&rsquo;


New figures just released show that the number of claims sent to formal review by ACC because of &lsquo;pre-existing conditions&rsquo; has doubled since National came to power.


Minister for ACC Nick Smith and the CEO of ACC Dr Jan White say they are just &lsquo;sticking more closely to the legislation.&rsquo;


But according to some of the best surgeons and specialists in the country, many of these &lsquo;pre-existing conditions&rsquo; have nothing to do with the cause of the injury.   And if the &lsquo;pre-existing condition&rsquo; didn&rsquo;t cause the injury, ACC has no grounds in the legislation to reject people who need help.


Here&rsquo;s what the legislation says; ACC cannot cover situations caused &ldquo;wholly or substantially&rdquo; by pre-existing conditions or aging.   Fair enough.   It doesn&rsquo;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&rsquo;s ironic that President Obama has just introduced health reforms in the United States to stop insurance companies turning people away because of &lsquo;pre-existing conditions.&rsquo;   Some people were even being rejected because they had hay fever.   Meanwhile New Zealand&rsquo;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 &lsquo;pre-existing conditions&rsquo; have successfully overturned their ACC review in court, he said that &lsquo;ACC does not keep this data&rsquo;.   He couldn&rsquo;t tell me anything.


It&rsquo;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&rsquo;s just silly.   If fifty years ago we had put aside money to pay for all the polio and TB cases we thought we&rsquo;d have to treat in the future, based on the number of cases in the 1950s, we&rsquo;d feel pretty stupid now. 


We can&rsquo;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&rsquo;s investment portfolio has increased by over $2 million in the last two years.   It&rsquo;s hardly going down the plug hole.


ACC isn&rsquo;t free - we all pay levies.   We pay to have a system that isn&rsquo;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&rsquo;t think New Zealanders will not give that up without a fight.


I certainly won&rsquo;t.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Collective responsibility does not require Turia to vote for more Maori unemployment</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-03-30T14:59:32+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/7a4e72b08029af0e36af4a130cecd6de-132.html#unique-entry-id-132</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/7a4e72b08029af0e36af4a130cecd6de-132.html#unique-entry-id-132</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Claims that ministerial collective responsibility stops Tariana Turia from voting against the government&rsquo;s welfare reforms are a convenient fiction, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;The welfare changes won&rsquo;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,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Progressives contribute to heart surgery unit in Zambia </title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-03-30T15:58:06+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/115bd507833a4f2e829254f8bb9d6c91-131.html#unique-entry-id-131</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/115bd507833a4f2e829254f8bb9d6c91-131.html#unique-entry-id-131</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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&rdquo; 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.


&ldquo;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,&rdquo; 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.


&ldquo;I am very proud that surgeons from our region have pioneered this project.   I&rsquo;m struck by the strength of the personal commitment of these local surgeons to serve and help others living thousands of miles away. 


&ldquo;We are a stronger and more caring community because we live amongst people like this.&rdquo;


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. 


&ldquo;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&rsquo;t be necessary.   That is the best kind of aid and development, and I congratulate everyone involved, &rdquo; says Jim Anderton]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Save 198 Youth Health Centre</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-03-18T10:14:18+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/e9443e4f554d0842b1ad81ad1e506957-130.html#unique-entry-id-130</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/e9443e4f554d0842b1ad81ad1e506957-130.html#unique-entry-id-130</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Save 198 Youth Health Centre


Jim Anderton&rsquo;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.


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;With increasing unemployment, increasing social and housing needs, together with cuts in ACC, health and education, such a move would simply be a disaster,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said.


&ldquo;It is even more inexplicable when the Canterbury DHB is suggesting the need for a &ldquo;One Stop Shop&rdquo; for these services which, of course, 198 already provides.


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;Good wishes for your protest.   Be assured that I and my Labour Parliamentary colleagues will be joining you in this fight.   I&rsquo;m certain it is one we can win, no matter how long it takes,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Mental health disaster unfolding in Canterbury DHB</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-03-18T10:08:02+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/56df90705a42ddaa75b97a563b8fd66a-129.html#unique-entry-id-129</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/56df90705a42ddaa75b97a563b8fd66a-129.html#unique-entry-id-129</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Something has gone terribly wrong with the Canterbury DHB&rsquo;s management of New Zealand&rsquo;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.&nbsp;


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 &lsquo;exclusion from decision making tables&rsquo; 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.&nbsp;


&ldquo;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?


&ldquo;Either they know about it and have done nothing, or they don&rsquo;t know, which is almost worse.


&ldquo;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.&rdquo;]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Financial review Debate - Appropriations Bill - Agriculture </title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Speeches</category><dc:date>2010-03-18T10:03:06+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/042ac5d4c3cef7586e614c94a1396066-128.html#unique-entry-id-128</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/042ac5d4c3cef7586e614c94a1396066-128.html#unique-entry-id-128</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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&rsquo;s economic performance?  


...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&rsquo;s entire programme for transforming New Zealand is to increase GST and drop the top tax rate for the most affluent New Zealanders &ndash; and yes, build a cycleway! 

...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&rsquo;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 &ndash; 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. 


...It&rsquo;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&rsquo;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 &lsquo;not inclined to step in to save the jobs.&rdquo; 

...The prime minister calls it &ldquo;a necessary adjustment to deal with the structure of AgResearch as it currently finds itself&rdquo; because they&rsquo;ve got &ldquo;too much capacity in certain areas". 

...In the 1980s we heard quotes about &ldquo;rising unemployment around a falling trend&rdquo; or when we close post offices and post banks it became not closure but &ldquo;transferring their resources&rdquo;, and we are getting the same kind of doublespeak now. 


I&rsquo;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&rsquo;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&rsquo;re not going out there alone when the rug is being pulled out from under them.


So the prime minister says Ag Research has &ldquo;too much capacity&rdquo;.   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&rsquo;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 &ndash; 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. 

...John Key still says we will catch up with Australia. ...  We will catch up with them all alright &ndash; sometime never.  ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Speech to the Alcohol Causes Violence  conference</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Speeches</category><dc:date>2010-03-23T14:00:07+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/1b833e4be2187b696d68a45aabba7ef0-127.html#unique-entry-id-127</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/1b833e4be2187b696d68a45aabba7ef0-127.html#unique-entry-id-127</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Any day of any week you can open any newspaper, or watch any news bulletin, and the evidence is plain: Alcohol-fuelled violence. 

...But she rallied to care for her last patient, a young man with head injuries and lacerations to most of his body. 

...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


...That&rsquo;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.


...Three out of five people who are arrested are under the influence of alcohol at the time they commit the offence for which they&rsquo;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. 

...Here&rsquo;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. 

...If we made some of these changes then at least it wouldn&rsquo;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.


...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&rsquo;s only going to cause more social problems.


...I would like to see the opening hours of all off-licences restricted, for example from 8.00 am to 10.00 pm.


...If we made some of these changes then there wouldn&rsquo;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. 

...We don&rsquo;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. 

...There are a lot of people who use alcohol responsibly, and they feel that their lifestyle is being criticized and threatened.  

...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.


...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&rsquo;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&rsquo;s health profile.


If we&rsquo;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&rsquo;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.


...But twenty years ago Helen Clark was called every name under the sun for doing so as Minister of Health. 

...The culture around drink driving has changed, but we have to be clear that it&rsquo;s a much bigger process than simply changing the law. 

...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. 

...But we act surprised when Black Cap Jesse Ryder or All Black Jimmy Cowan get into trouble when they&rsquo;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&rsquo;s why I believe one of the most effective changes we could make is to reduce or ban alcohol advertising, particularly at sports games.


...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&rsquo;s bedroom or school classroom has the Steinlager logo prominently displayed.  


...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&rsquo;s support for it. 


But you still get bad press by taking on a lot of the alcohol issues like binge drinking. 

...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. 

...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 ran headlong into the booze lobby, and the sneering about nanny state from people who don&rsquo;t care how many kids kill themselves, until it&rsquo;s one of their own.


We shouldn&rsquo;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.


...Laws get amended in chaos, debates border on the irrational and law-making doesn&rsquo;t fully take account of health-based interventions, education, and public campaigns to change the way people behave.


...But we will only be successful when it is accompanied by a long and targeted marketing campaign.


...We&rsquo;ve got a long way to go to get people to see alcohol abuse as a public health issue. 

...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. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Anti-science government axes jobs</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-03-16T13:29:05+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/05fc8888b764f994a897e44bdbd8e501-126.html#unique-entry-id-126</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/05fc8888b764f994a897e44bdbd8e501-126.html#unique-entry-id-126</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Future growth in the most productive parts of New Zealand&rsquo;s economy will be reduced because of the Government&rsquo;s decision to axe forty jobs at AgResearch, Opposition agriculture spokesperson Jim Anderton says.


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;But today the government is hacking off over forty jobs, mainly in meat and wool research.


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;Fast Forward was meant to work in partnership with the private sector and with agencies like AgResearch to speed up New Zealand&rsquo;s economic development.   After it was axed, nothing has happened for eighteen months - that&rsquo;s why demand for AgResearch&rsquo;s long term research and development is falling.


&ldquo;Farmers won&rsquo;t carry all the costs on their own back.   They need a commitment from government as well.


&ldquo;Having canned the innovation fund, the loss of jobs announced today is the direct result of the government&rsquo;s anti-science policies,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>FAI Money should never have been given a Crown guarantee</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-03-11T14:00:32+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/1cd49d32a442eea7e983c02c8e4ab7b1-125.html#unique-entry-id-125</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/1cd49d32a442eea7e983c02c8e4ab7b1-125.html#unique-entry-id-125</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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.


&ldquo;The Crown guarantee was the only thing that kept FAI Money in the public marketplace,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said.


&ldquo;But FAI should not have been in the public marketplace after what happened to Hanover, and the behaviour of Mr Hotchin and Mr Watson.&rdquo;


Jim Anderton says the Crown guarantee was introduced to make sure there wouldn&rsquo;t be a run on financial institutions in the difficult global economic conditions of late 2008 and 2009. 


&ldquo;The guarantee was never intended to provide backing for businesses that were not going to cut the mustard in more normal times.   Treasury&rsquo;s guidelines for considering a Crown guarantee were &lsquo;the maintenance of public confidence in New Zealand&rsquo;s financial system; and maintaining the confidence of general public depositors in New Zealand financial institutions.&rsquo; 


&ldquo;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 &lsquo;good character&rsquo; and business acumen of the entity and &ldquo;The track record of the entity.&rdquo;


&ldquo;Bill English should never have allowed Hotchin and Watson&rsquo;s business to get a Crown guarantee and the confirmation today that they will not be seeking funds from the pubic proves it.


&ldquo;The Crown guarantee was a good policy; but that doesn&rsquo;t mean everyone should have got it&rdquo;


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&rsquo; money.  ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Kiwis didn&#x2019;t want Telecom privatised&#x2c; says ex CEO</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-03-05T15:47:34+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/8e60ae11212d95c490699fa6a1d94dd4-124.html#unique-entry-id-124</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/8e60ae11212d95c490699fa6a1d94dd4-124.html#unique-entry-id-124</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Former CEO, Theresa Gattung has admitted that New Zealanders would have preferred Telecom to remain in public hands. 


&ldquo;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,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader.


Ms Gattung said on Radio New Zealand&rsquo;s Nine-to-Noon show this morning that the basic problem for Telecom was &lsquo;a fundamental disconnect&rsquo; that Kiwis would have preferred Telecom to be a State Owned Enterprise (SOE) and &lsquo;never have actually been a private company.&rsquo;


She said that the SOE model of &lsquo;commercial imperative but public good, sits much more comfortably with the Kiwi psyche.&rsquo;


&ldquo;It&rsquo;s a shame she couldn&rsquo;t have acknowledged that when she was the CEO of Telecom,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton.


&ldquo;The public of New Zealand are still getting the raw end of the deal when it comes to Telecom.   Today it&rsquo;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. 


&ldquo;Theresa Gattung calls Telecom &lsquo;a train wreck&rsquo;.   Well the wreck started in 1990.   Ms.   Gattung didn&rsquo;t help to fix the wreck.   She resisted the Labour Progressive government&rsquo;s attempts to open the market and regulate Telecom&rsquo;s monopoly.   Despite her resistance we still managed to open the market considerably,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton.


&ldquo;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,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Save men&#x2019;s help-line</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-03-04T15:19:05+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/6bcdd1fac59c3165e1fb18e292be4359-123.html#unique-entry-id-123</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/6bcdd1fac59c3165e1fb18e292be4359-123.html#unique-entry-id-123</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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&rsquo;s only phone counselling service set up to help men, says Jim Anderton MP for Wigram and former minister responsible for the government&rsquo;s suicide prevention strategy.


Health Ministry figures show that 370 of the 483 people who killed themselves in 2007 were men.


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;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.&rdquo;


Lifeline runs the national helpline set up for men, but because of a funding crisis caused by the recession, the &lsquo;Mensline&rsquo; 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.


&ldquo;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,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton.


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;Surely the government can find what is likely to be a fraction of that, to keep this helpline going and potentially save many lives,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>ACC relies on out-dated methods to test injuries</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-02-25T15:09:03+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/acc00fe90c1465a2547d8d90809e2bd4-122.html#unique-entry-id-122</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/acc00fe90c1465a2547d8d90809e2bd4-122.html#unique-entry-id-122</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Accident victims who are being turned away by ACC because of fictitious &lsquo;pre-existing conditions&rsquo; 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.


&ldquo;This seems a clear conflict of interest.


&ldquo;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 &lsquo;pre-existing&rsquo; conditions.&rdquo;


&ldquo;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&rsquo;s job to prove that there was a pre-existing condition.   And yet there has been no public debate about this. 


&ldquo;It&rsquo;s happened behind the scenes, and the public have been kept in the dark.&rdquo;


The surgeon who contacted Mr Anderton&rsquo;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 &lsquo;pre-disposed  to dislocate her shoulder because she was very flexible.&rsquo; 


&ldquo;That&rsquo;s rubbish; it&rsquo;s like saying someone is &lsquo;pre-disposed to break their arm.&rsquo;


&ldquo;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.&rdquo;


&ldquo;There&rsquo;s no money saved here; specialists predict that up to 50% of these people who don&rsquo;t get treatment straight away will have marked deterioration as they get older and will require much more expensive surgery later in life,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Fisheries decision shows Fish Act is &#x2018;hopeless&#x2019;</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-02-23T17:06:37+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/23cb65304fb7c243c78b7a3229006efd-121.html#unique-entry-id-121</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/23cb65304fb7c243c78b7a3229006efd-121.html#unique-entry-id-121</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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&rsquo;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.


&ldquo;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,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said.


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


&ldquo;It&rsquo;s too easy for self-interested applicants to get an injunction that threatens a species&rsquo; survival.


&ldquo;I couldn&rsquo;t change the Act to ensure sustainability because of the influence of big fishing&nbsp;money on political parties.


&ldquo;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


&ldquo;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&rsquo;s hopeless for a Judge to be able to come in and substitute his decision for the original one.&nbsp;   Decisions to close the fishery should only be set aside when the minister&rsquo;s decision is manifestly unreasonable.


&ldquo;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.&nbsp;   It later emerged that NZ First had taken $9990 secret &lsquo;donations&rsquo; 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.


&ldquo;The fishing industry&rsquo;s behaviour is grotesque and selfish.&nbsp;   Enormous damage would be done to New Zealand&rsquo;s exports if a species went extinct on our watch, but those who took the injunction were clearly putting their own interests first,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Animal Welfare Amendment Bill</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Speeches</category><dc:date>2010-02-18T20:10:50+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/87d30ca291d64144433b8e5a3582ecde-120.html#unique-entry-id-120</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/87d30ca291d64144433b8e5a3582ecde-120.html#unique-entry-id-120</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[In New Zealand we&rsquo;ve always had a close connection both on a social and economic basis with animals.


...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.


...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. 

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

...This Bill doesn&rsquo;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&rsquo;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&rsquo;s minds.


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


...And they&rsquo;re asking about animal health and welfare and the quality standards of our production processes.


The future for New Zealand&rsquo;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&rsquo;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 &lsquo;reckless ill-treatment&rsquo; of animals, alongside the existing &lsquo;wilful ill-treatment&rsquo; will help us capture those who might otherwise not have reached the threshold for &lsquo;wilful ill-treatment.&rsquo;


But let&rsquo;s be realistic; there&rsquo;s no point in increasing the penalty if you don&rsquo;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&rsquo;t found by a biosecurity staffer.....  It was found by a man walking his dog in an Auckland park!


...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 &ndash; 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.


...Measuring how an animal &lsquo;feels&rsquo; 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 - &lsquo;how do we know whether animal welfare standards are being observed?&rsquo;


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&rsquo;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.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Kiwibank stays in Kiwi market - and makes a profit</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-02-19T16:08:40+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/75056a0c6c13e44cd1c86a520c1c1ed1-119.html#unique-entry-id-119</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/75056a0c6c13e44cd1c86a520c1c1ed1-119.html#unique-entry-id-119</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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.


&ldquo;This is a remarkable achievement, worth celebrating.&rdquo;


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


&ldquo;It&rsquo;s succeeded because it gets most of its deposits from, and does most of its lending in the New Zealand market,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton.


&ldquo;One of its strongest areas is its support for small and medium sized businesses in New Zealand.&rdquo;


Kiwibank was the only bank to front up at last year&rsquo;s Parliamentary Banking Inquiry.   The inquiry established that the &lsquo;big four&rsquo; 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.


&ldquo;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. 


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


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;The Australian owned banks don&rsquo;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,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>ACC turning people away</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-02-18T15:09:34+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/68acc4b6b8015489d90f0a636c6983ea-118.html#unique-entry-id-118</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/68acc4b6b8015489d90f0a636c6983ea-118.html#unique-entry-id-118</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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 &lsquo;pre-existing conditions&rsquo;, 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.


&ldquo;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,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton.


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


&ldquo;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 &lsquo;pre-existing condition&rsquo; &ndash; which is clearly ludicrous.


&ldquo;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,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton.


&ldquo;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. 


&ldquo;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&rsquo;s car to pay for the operation.


&ldquo;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,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Government needs to resource animal welfare</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-02-18T14:07:40+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/bf15e738aa8bcdec97f0e577ef3686be-117.html#unique-entry-id-117</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/bf15e738aa8bcdec97f0e577ef3686be-117.html#unique-entry-id-117</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Read Jim Anderton&rsquo;s speech in Parliament on the Animal Welfare Bill.   Click here.


&ldquo;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&rsquo;s just window dressing,&rdquo; 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 &lsquo;reckless cruelty&rsquo; to capture those offenders not covered under existing legislation.


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;There&rsquo;s no point in increasing the penalty if you don&rsquo;t have people on the streets and in the fields to investigate the crime.&rdquo;


&ldquo;This government has already cut front-line staff in areas like biosecurity.   When the Hadda Beetle was found in Auckland recently - it wasn&rsquo;t found by a biosecurity staffer.   It was found by a man walking his dog in an Auckland park.


&ldquo;Perhaps that same man can monitor breaches of the Animal Welfare Act while he&rsquo;s at it.&rdquo;


&ldquo;The other problem is how do we measure animal cruelty?   It&rsquo;s not easy to measure how an animal feels unless you have industry tested standards.


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;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.&rdquo;]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Equal pay</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Speeches</category><dc:date>2010-02-18T13:05:19+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/82a493c44f2a7e69519a01b884f4e3b9-116.html#unique-entry-id-116</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/82a493c44f2a7e69519a01b884f4e3b9-116.html#unique-entry-id-116</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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&rsquo;ve progressed to a Red Bag, which is bigger than a purse. 


I&rsquo;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.


	&bull;	I&rsquo;m proud that in government we introduced paid parental leave, and four weeks paid annual leave,


	&bull;	Raised the minimum wage by over 70% or $200 per week, and


	&bull;	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 &ndash; 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&rsquo;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 &ldquo;it had completed its work&rdquo;.


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&rsquo;re in for the long haul, and we will keep fighting alongside you for equal pay.    


Good wishes for the battle.  ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>National has no plan for the economy</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Speeches</category><dc:date>2010-02-10T13:13:07+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/6f613d3eccaf64fcd85214fb83b3a62c-115.html#unique-entry-id-115</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/6f613d3eccaf64fcd85214fb83b3a62c-115.html#unique-entry-id-115</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On Monday 20 October 2008, National leader, John Key told a press conference that morning that if National was elected and did &ldquo;a half decent job&rdquo; at growing the economy, then increasing GST would not be necessary&rdquo;. 


...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&rsquo;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.


...We were stagnant in terms of our research and development last year &ndash; worse still the $2000 million Fast Forward fund was cancelled. 

...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. 


...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. 


...When we look at the Budget this year, $40 million is to be spent &ndash; that is over 2 years so that is $20 million a year &ndash; 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. 


...Does Mr Key know that the introduction of GST and the halving of the top tax rate that New Zealand introduced &ndash; dare I say a Labour Government introduced &ndash; in the 1980s - led to the greatest increase of wealth gap between rich and poor in New Zealand&rsquo;s history.  


...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. 


...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.


...That is just a small increase for Mr Key &ndash; he is a slow earner &ndash; 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. 

...Those people will face a $2000 million increase on all the goods and services they pay for. ...  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. 


...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. 


...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. 


...He went on to ask: &ldquo;Or are you prepared to back yourselves and this country to be greater still?&rdquo;


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. 


...If one reads the 23 pages of it &ndash; I went through it and it is a big ask, I can tell members &ndash; 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. 

...While we are going through all this, Australia is up and running, which is the thing that we should have been planning for. 

...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. 


...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. 


...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. 

...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. 


...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&rsquo;t register, if those members do not know what that means, then they know nothing about New Zealand. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Plan for economy does not stack up </title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-02-09T16:00:29+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/f146a90259da9fe844275308377e1f42-114.html#unique-entry-id-114</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/f146a90259da9fe844275308377e1f42-114.html#unique-entry-id-114</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The plan for our economy announced by the Government this morning is a huge disappointment, Progressive leader Jim Anderton says.


&ldquo;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,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said.


&ldquo;This from a prime minister who said before the election, &ldquo;if National is elected and does a &lsquo;half decent job&rsquo; at growing the economy, then increasing GST and the top tax rate will not be necessary.&rdquo; 


&ldquo;New Zealand needs higher incomes not higher costs.


&ldquo;The National Government has no plan for jobs, and no plan to increase wages.


&ldquo;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, &ldquo;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.&rdquo; 


"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&rsquo;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. 


&ldquo;It just doesn&rsquo;t stack up,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said in Parliament.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Prisons not for sale in New Zealand</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-02-09T13:00:55+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/915aec2f4f7fcc72c589868b432c9047-113.html#unique-entry-id-113</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/915aec2f4f7fcc72c589868b432c9047-113.html#unique-entry-id-113</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[&ldquo;The core business of prisons is to keep the community safe and reduce future crime; it is not to make money,&rdquo; 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&rsquo;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&rsquo;s involvement in the management of prisons in 2000.   The National-led government is planning to reverse that policy.


&ldquo;Prison management should never be a viable private business because we don&rsquo;t want crime to become a growth industry for anyone,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton.


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;Australia is learning that its experiment in private prisons might not have been such a good idea.&rdquo;


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&rsquo;s prison has been taken back from private operators because of serious deficiencies in the operation.


&ldquo;This government is determined to go back to the future, and start the Australian experiment all over again in New Zealand.


&ldquo;Imprisonment is essentially a state responsibility which should not be delegated to the private sector for cost cutting or profit,&rdquo; said Jim Anderton.


Jim Anderton at the prison officers&rsquo; rally at parliament with Labour MPs Clayton Cosgrove (Waimakariri - left of photo) and Grant Robertson (Wellington Central - right of photo). 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Condolences for people of Haiti</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Speeches</category><dc:date>2010-02-09T14:44:18+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/2ed0e217326bbdc599860460d005ceac-112.html#unique-entry-id-112</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/2ed0e217326bbdc599860460d005ceac-112.html#unique-entry-id-112</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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 Ren&eacute; Pr&eacute;val 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&rsquo;t have &ndash; but Haiti doesn&rsquo;t just need &lsquo;doctors without borders&rsquo;, 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.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Tax matters</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Columns</category><dc:date>2010-02-08T12:00:39+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/bd34474baa18b0fa95efdcd723f0c7c2-111.html#unique-entry-id-111</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/bd34474baa18b0fa95efdcd723f0c7c2-111.html#unique-entry-id-111</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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 &ndash; 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&rsquo;s ransom, and that &lsquo;modest&rsquo; 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&rsquo;t adjust the effects of the tax on your budget by buying less of something you don&rsquo;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 &lsquo;reform&rsquo; was that it was a &lsquo;better way&rsquo; of doing things.    I didn&rsquo;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&rsquo;ll spell out what one of those might be.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Good step forward but more urgency needed </title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-02-04T20:11:25+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/ffe62c1dd1ea48e566d2b43b520ee82c-110.html#unique-entry-id-110</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/ffe62c1dd1ea48e566d2b43b520ee82c-110.html#unique-entry-id-110</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) scheme is an important step forward for New Zealand&rsquo;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.


&ldquo;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 &ndash; as it needs to be.   We had funding in place to develop a world-recognised animal identification and traceability system,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said.


&ldquo;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.  


&ldquo;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. 


&ldquo;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&rsquo;s leaders in producing high-quality, high-value, safe food.


&ldquo;The world&rsquo;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.


 &ldquo;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,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Cracks start to show after National&#x2019;s bio-security cuts</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-02-04T20:08:41+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/e421bce5e4d34b9a61baad755b97940f-109.html#unique-entry-id-109</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/e421bce5e4d34b9a61baad755b97940f-109.html#unique-entry-id-109</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[&ldquo;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&rsquo;t need to be a rocket scientist to see the link here,&rdquo; 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.


&ldquo;The government&rsquo;s justification for getting rid of these staff last year was that trade and passenger numbers were in decline.   It&rsquo;s true, there has been a decline in the last quarter, but the long term trend over ten years, is definitely up.&rdquo; 


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.


&ldquo;Trying to save money by playing Russian Roulette on the New Zealand border is worse than false economy; it&rsquo;s putting our economy at serious risk.&rdquo;


The Hadda Beetle was found in Auckland&rsquo;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.


&ldquo;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&rsquo;s only a matter of time before we have another incursion.


&ldquo;Prevention is better than cure.   Keep the money and the jobs in biosecurity to stop pests getting in.   Then you don&rsquo;t have to spend more money on trying to eliminate them once they&rsquo;re here.&rdquo;]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>National shows its true colours &#x2013; health cuts</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-01-22T11:52:31+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/7313b6bb3683bb9a637ca2cfd078829b-108.html#unique-entry-id-108</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/7313b6bb3683bb9a637ca2cfd078829b-108.html#unique-entry-id-108</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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&rsquo;t give a damn, said Wigram MP and Progressive Leader, Jim Anderton.


&ldquo;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.&rdquo;


Jim Anderton&rsquo;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.


&ldquo;Although it&rsquo;s the District Health Boards making these decisions, whether in Wellington or Christchurch, they are cutting services because resources are limited.   That&rsquo;s a problem for the government, and Tony Ryall as Minister of Health should be doing something about it.&rdquo;


Until now, elderly people who need it get help with basic domestic and personal activities like vacuuming and showering.


&ldquo;I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg.   If you get a government that promises tax cuts, then you&rsquo;re going to have less money to spend on essential services, and then there&rsquo;s only one way to balance the books.


&ldquo;When my office contacted the Christchurch District Health Board, it was told that &lsquo;families will need to take more responsibility for their elderly parents...  If old people can&rsquo;t go out shopping, there&rsquo;s always on-line shopping; and if they can&rsquo;t manage the cleaning they can just clean one room a day with a carpet sweeper.&rsquo;   Well, I&rsquo;d like to see my 90 year old constituent who has just had her help cut, carpet sweep the house on her walking frame!


&ldquo;We need to have a proper public policy debate to work out how we&rsquo;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,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>FTT better than increasing GST</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2010-01-21T11:43:39+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/3c57deef746c8968e68fa047ae74640a-107.html#unique-entry-id-107</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/3c57deef746c8968e68fa047ae74640a-107.html#unique-entry-id-107</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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.


&ldquo;GST is a regressive tax,&rdquo; Jim Anderton says.


&ldquo;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&rsquo;s almost impossible to make up for the price rises they would pay at the shops.


&ldquo;Instead of increasing GST, the government should look at paying for personal tax cuts by introducing a low financial transactions tax.&nbsp;


&ldquo;A financial transaction tax could be set at a rate that for most transactions would be similar to the fee&nbsp;people pay for using an ATM, EFT-POS or electronic banking.


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;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.&rdquo;


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, &ldquo;a financial transactions tax is an idea whose time has come.&rdquo;


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/opinion/27krugman.html?  _r=1]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>10 New Year wishes for farming</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Newsletters</category><dc:date>2010-01-24T11:40:02+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/575994313b3cd6bc52cead89d66e5d67-106.html#unique-entry-id-106</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/575994313b3cd6bc52cead89d66e5d67-106.html#unique-entry-id-106</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Column for Canterbury Farmer


It&rsquo;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 &ndash; 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:


...Niwa has just confirmed that the first decade of the new millennium has been the hottest on record in New Zealand.   That means we&rsquo;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&rsquo;s promising to do more.   But this issue has been left on the back burner for too long already.


...Unfortunately for farmers, David Carter said in parliament recently that he was &lsquo;adhering to his own strict timetable&rsquo; in allocating funds to research and development.   That appears to mean doing nothing in 2009 and not much more in 2010 - for example, there&rsquo;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&rsquo;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&rsquo;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&rsquo;d l like to see less photos in 2010, and more action.


Find new ways to tap global markets


Sales on Fonterra&rsquo;s internet-based trading platform &lsquo;globalDairyTrade&rsquo; 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&rsquo;s entire 150-page &lsquo;2025 Taskforce Report&rsquo;, farming got just 24 words.   Anyone who believes that farming is a &lsquo;sunset industry&rsquo; 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&rsquo;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 &lsquo;back to the future&rsquo; in 2010. 


Don&rsquo;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&rsquo;ve got more jobs and a decent return for honest hard work.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Jim&#x27;s E-News&#x2c; Christmas 2009</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Newsletters</category><dc:date>2009-12-17T17:00:16+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/8344a48ee395778f7dfbbc57bb55bce3-105.html#unique-entry-id-105</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/8344a48ee395778f7dfbbc57bb55bce3-105.html#unique-entry-id-105</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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. ...  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.


...It&rsquo;s not only what the National-led government does that matters - it&rsquo;s what it doesn&rsquo;t do.   And I don&rsquo;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.


...We will keep the pressure on this government to see more done for ordinary New Zealanders, Maori and Pakeha.   We won&rsquo;t let them get away with sitting back and hoping that &lsquo;she&rsquo;ll be right&rsquo; 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.


...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. 

...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.


...It&rsquo;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. 

...It didn&rsquo;t help that John Key went to Copenhagen with a revised ETS (Emission Trading Scheme) which leaves the New Zealand taxpayer out of pocket. 

...So far, no-one has produced any evidence that these texts are abusive or that they were at an excessively late hour.


...They are repeating the lines given to them by John Key on timing of text messages and that Mayor Williams messages have been &lsquo;aggressive&rsquo;. 

...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? 

...It is sad to see the very good relations that the Labour-Progressive government&nbsp;had with local government during the past nine years degenerate so quickly &ndash; 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.


...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. 

...It doesn&rsquo;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. 

...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.


...When I was Minister of Agriculture in the Labour-Progressive government, I put millions of dollars into research and development in the primary sector. 


...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&nbsp;&nbsp;research and development. 

...I&rsquo;ll be keeping the pressure on this government in 2010 to put funds into&nbsp;&nbsp;research and development&nbsp;because if we don&rsquo;t, New Zealand will miss out. 

...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. 

...But after this government axed the Fast Forward Fund which we had set up with $700 million set aside for&nbsp;&nbsp;research and development, it has spent a year doing nothing except creating another body called the &lsquo;Primary Growth Partnership&rsquo;.   The PGP hasn&rsquo;t allocated a single cent to&nbsp;&nbsp;research and development&nbsp;yet, and it doesn&rsquo;t appear that any will be invested in the near future.


The Minister of Agriculture, David Carter said in parliament recently that he was &lsquo;adhering to his own strict timetable&rsquo; for&nbsp;&nbsp;research and development&nbsp; funding, which appears to be to do nothing and spend nothing on primary sector research and development


...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.


...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.&nbsp;


It&rsquo;s ironic that Mr du Fresne&rsquo;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.


...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 was created in part as a response to the monopoly behaviour of the big banks who were abandoning small communities throughout New Zealand. 

...Westpac&rsquo;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.


...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. 

...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. 

...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&rsquo;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&rsquo;s a shame that given this re-engagement with the public of New Zealand, Westpac didn&rsquo;t show up at the Parliamentary Banking Inquiry recently. 

...It&rsquo;s only a matter of time now before the other banks follow Kiwibank and return to local banking.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Mayor gets unfair drubbing by Key&#x2019;s cheer squad </title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-12-15T14:42:49+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/6fa1b08aeb04f6d9207da011d99d93d9-104.html#unique-entry-id-104</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/6fa1b08aeb04f6d9207da011d99d93d9-104.html#unique-entry-id-104</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Mayor Andrew Williams is being given an unfair drubbing by the John Key&rsquo;s media cheer squad, Jim Anderton said today. 


&ldquo;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 &lsquo;aggressive&rsquo; in his communications to North Shore MPs, including John Key, MP for Helensville.   For example, they are ignoring William&rsquo;s criticisms of the National-ACT legislation for Auckland&rsquo;s new Super City,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said. 


&ldquo;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. 


&ldquo;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 &ndash; and get away with it. 


&ldquo;Andrew Williams is an outspoken mayor &ndash; but then all good mayors are outspoken.   That&rsquo;s their job! 


&ldquo;He is a thorn in the side of those who driving the implementation of Auckland as a &lsquo;Super City&rsquo; with barely a pause for breath.   It is too reminiscent of Roger Douglas&rsquo; strategy in the 1980s for my liking.   Douglas&rsquo; plan was to get unacceptable and unpopular legislation through the House before people understood their real implications.


&ldquo;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 &ndash; 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,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said today. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Parliament right to fix problem for marine farmers</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-12-10T12:54:14+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/8270952b0f1aa72875ea7dcc5fde50f2-103.html#unique-entry-id-103</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/8270952b0f1aa72875ea7dcc5fde50f2-103.html#unique-entry-id-103</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[&ldquo;Parliament&rsquo;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,&rdquo; says MP for Wigram and Progressive party leader Jim Anderton.


He was referring to the recent decision by Parliament&rsquo;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.


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;We&rsquo;re likely to see more marine farms in New Zealand.   It&rsquo;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.


&ldquo;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&rsquo;t being solved any other way, so that these farmers can continue to work,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Our lean meat reputation at risk</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-12-09T17:49:45+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/1ad216203763515cb32e352aba72b001-102.html#unique-entry-id-102</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/1ad216203763515cb32e352aba72b001-102.html#unique-entry-id-102</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Stall-based farming where cows can be kept in boxes for 24 hours a day, eight months of the year will undermine New Zealand&rsquo;s reputation for free-range, lean and healthy meat, says Opposition Spokesperson for Agriculture and Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton.


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;Many in those countries know their own meat is unhealthy and there was genuine interest in our approach to natural animal husbandry&rdquo;, Jim Anderton said.


&ldquo;There was an acknowledgement that New Zealand creates a high quality healthy product, compared to their own meat.


&ldquo;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&rsquo;re so fat and of course they get no exercise.


&ldquo;It doesn&rsquo;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.


&ldquo;It only takes a few negative stories to reach the international consumers, and our reputation is at risk,&rdquo; 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.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>After a year&#x2c; government does nothing for R&#x26;D</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-12-09T17:49:30+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/0cfee68a255437c74ef40f9e1cffa5c4-101.html#unique-entry-id-101</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/0cfee68a255437c74ef40f9e1cffa5c4-101.html#unique-entry-id-101</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The Minister of Agriculture, David Carter said in parliament today that he was &lsquo;adhering to his own strict timetable&rsquo; 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.


&ldquo;The National government canned the Fast Forward Fund as soon as it came to power and replaced it with its own Primary Growth Partnership.


&ldquo;After a year in office they&rsquo;re not even out of the planning phase,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said in parliament today.


&ldquo;Projects were being developed and progress was under way through the &lsquo;Fast Forward&rsquo; fund, set up by us the Labour/Progressive government at the time the National party came to power.


&ldquo;There was already $700 million in the MAF accounts, ready to fund applications.&rdquo;


$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.


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;Under John Key&rsquo;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,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Kiwibank leads big banks back to local services </title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-12-03T15:11:23+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/93006ed7e1052ab5ad3707bfadc30719-100.html#unique-entry-id-100</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/93006ed7e1052ab5ad3707bfadc30719-100.html#unique-entry-id-100</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Westpac&rsquo;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.


&ldquo;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,&rdquo; says MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton.


&ldquo;It&rsquo;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.&rdquo;


&ldquo;It&rsquo;s a shame that given this re-engagement with the public of New Zealand, Westpac didn&rsquo;t show up at the Parliamentary Banking Inquiry recently.   We would have welcomed their views.   Kiwibank was the only bank that fronted.&rdquo;


&ldquo;It&rsquo;s only a matter of time now before the other banks follow Kiwibank and return to local banking,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Key weak on Copenhagen</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-11-30T16:34:27+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/bc2929553f12cce94443e8e0a3622d04-99.html#unique-entry-id-99</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/bc2929553f12cce94443e8e0a3622d04-99.html#unique-entry-id-99</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[John Key&rsquo;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.


&ldquo;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. 


&ldquo;This is a failure of leadership.   He should accept his share of responsibility for helping to make a difference.


&ldquo;Instead, the prime minister is making an art form out of not doing anything.


&ldquo;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. 


&ldquo;But his big subsidies for big polluters make him irrelevant anyway.&rdquo;]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Brash calls for return to failed policies of the past</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-11-30T16:33:06+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/c8470f3b3da3e6730a85823e9cb635fe-98.html#unique-entry-id-98</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/c8470f3b3da3e6730a85823e9cb635fe-98.html#unique-entry-id-98</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[&ldquo;It&rsquo;s like the return of Dracula.&rdquo;


That&rsquo;s how Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton is describing Don Brash&rsquo;s recommendations released today.


&ldquo;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. 


&ldquo;Now they want to go back to the failed policies of the past.


&ldquo;It&rsquo;s not surprising that when Don Brash heads an inquiry at Act&rsquo;s behest, he comes up with Act&rsquo;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.


&ldquo;More asset sales, deep spending cuts, radical policy change, and higher costs for low and middle income households wouldn&rsquo;t make New Zealand better off.&rdquo;]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Erebus pilots deserve justice after 30 years</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-11-27T15:38:28+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/47d4316fd1b54af126f1711717d6ebb1-97.html#unique-entry-id-97</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/47d4316fd1b54af126f1711717d6ebb1-97.html#unique-entry-id-97</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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 &ldquo;organisational failure&rdquo; 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 &lsquo;pilot error&rsquo;.


At the time, Air New Zealand undermined what became known as the &lsquo;Mahon Report&rsquo; 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:    &ldquo;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.&rdquo;


&ldquo;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,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Opening the new Rodger Wright Centre</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Speeches</category><dc:date>2009-11-20T19:00:48+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/e6c624fd779c420dc522b436058e9c9a-96.html#unique-entry-id-96</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/e6c624fd779c420dc522b436058e9c9a-96.html#unique-entry-id-96</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[I am very happy to be here today to witness this blessing, and the opening of the new Rodger Wright premises.


It&rsquo;s normal practice at a house-warming to bring a present or flowers, and I&rsquo;m sorry I&rsquo;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 supporter was furious, and he phoned the florist to complain. 


After he&rsquo;d told the florist of the obvious mistake and how angry he was, the florist said: &lsquo;Sir, I&rsquo;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, &lsquo;Congratulations on your new location.&rsquo;


I was pleased to be able to launch the free-to-users, one-for-one Needle Exchange Programme (NEP) in 2004, and it&rsquo;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.


...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 &lsquo;needle-exchange programme&rsquo;.


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.


...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.


...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.&nbsp;  It was meant to make the needle exchange programme work better.


Tony Ryall - then an opposition MP - called it  &ldquo;political correctness by a liberal Government.&rdquo; 


He&rsquo;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&rsquo;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&nbsp; Progressive Party had with Labour at the time &ndash; for which my Labour colleagues here today&nbsp;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&rsquo;t many votes in being wise or liberal about drug abuse. 


But it was the right thing to do.


...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&rsquo; lives, more often than not, means going the extra mile.  

...I wish we didn&rsquo;t have drug use causing the harm it does, wrecking the lives of many people, and wrecking many communities. 

...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.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>1000 people die because of heavy drinking each year </title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-11-26T15:21:22+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/4d74fcc34ad7f8547d400dec61f9cdc2-95.html#unique-entry-id-95</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/4d74fcc34ad7f8547d400dec61f9cdc2-95.html#unique-entry-id-95</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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.


&ldquo;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,&rdquo; 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.


&ldquo;25% of New Zealand drinkers are heavy drinkers.   That&rsquo;s equal to the combined population of both Wellington and Christchurch.


&ldquo;To put this national crisis into perspective, each year less than ten people die as a result of using the drug commonly known as &lsquo;P&rsquo;.   Twenty people died from swine flu this year.1000 people die from alcohol related problems each year.&rdquo;


&ldquo;But it&rsquo;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. 


&ldquo;That&rsquo;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,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>National&#x2019;s third world way to govern</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-11-27T15:18:23+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/a59ecffa81d5f0806e5e1b96cae355e7-94.html#unique-entry-id-94</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/a59ecffa81d5f0806e5e1b96cae355e7-94.html#unique-entry-id-94</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[It&rsquo;s hypocritical for the National Party to attack those who criticise its dodgy deal on emissions trading, Progressive MP Jim Anderton says.


&ldquo;National needs to say if it still supports the concept of full and final Treaty settlements.


&ldquo;It has gone from declaring an unrealistic timeframe for Treaty settlements, its leader declaring &lsquo;The Treaty did not create a partnership&rsquo;, and Gerry Brownlee calling a Maori member of parliament a &lsquo;black fella&rsquo;, to now accusing someone else of playing the race card if they oppose National&rsquo;s deal.


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;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.&rdquo;


Examples of Gerry Brownlee&rsquo;s record on race relations;


&ldquo;Why is the Government continuing to negotiate with a group that will not accept the Crown&rsquo;s ownership of the foreshore and seabed?&rdquo; - In parliament, on Tuesday, May 31, 2005, about negotiations with Ngati Porou:


&ldquo;National would change the foreshore law to prevent the Maori Land Court hearing customary rights cases and investigate axing the court altogether.&rdquo; - NZ Herald, 18 April 2005.


&ldquo;What I think is that there is a large amount of worry &ndash; 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.&rdquo; - Agenda, 6 November 2004.


Called John Tamihere &lsquo;black fella&rsquo; - 10 February 2004.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>&#x2018;Full and final&#x2019; Waitangi settlements?</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-11-18T16:55:23+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/2e7e626e92d05124139ba97d2ddcaa6e-93.html#unique-entry-id-93</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/2e7e626e92d05124139ba97d2ddcaa6e-93.html#unique-entry-id-93</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[If the government reopens the Treaty settlement with Ngai Tahu because of the ETS, there will never again be any such principle as &lsquo;full and final&rsquo; settlements, Progressive MP Jim Anderton says.


&ldquo;The government is heading down a very damaging path by doing a special deal that revisits the 1990s settlement with Ngai Tahu.


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;To reopen it now makes a mockery of Treaty settlements.


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;If the government has to compensate over ETS, then it has to compensate over any change of policy that might negatively affect valuation.


&ldquo;I notice no one wants to revisit the settlement when governments make decisions that subsequently increase the value of the asset.


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;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,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Does the law support sustainability of our fisheries?</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Speeches</category><dc:date>2009-11-19T13:52:09+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/c531b19eb4c5f56d4791cd35ed3c45e2-92.html#unique-entry-id-92</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/c531b19eb4c5f56d4791cd35ed3c45e2-92.html#unique-entry-id-92</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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. 

...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&rsquo;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.)


...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.


...That&rsquo;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.


...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. 

...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&rsquo;t make it out of select committee, is now the Fisheries Minister. 


...What he didn&rsquo;t say in his press release is that he is responsible, along with others, for the fact that we can&rsquo;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.


...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? 

...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. 


...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. 


...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. 

...In all of the discussion about my decision to protect the dolphin I am yet to hear anyone say that it&rsquo;s a good idea to be blas&eacute; about making an entire species - let alone a species of mammal -  extinct on our watch.


...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&rsquo;s hard to understand why the fishing industry won&rsquo;t see that taking a cautious approach in the short term is best for the industry too. 

...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.


...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.  

...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. 


...On the other hand, I&rsquo;d already made my decision to exclude from the closure some areas where a case existed for closure to protect the dolphins. 

...But in my view it is unacceptable that the law allowed a greater risk to be taken than the one I&rsquo;d already accepted; because I&rsquo;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. 

...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. 

...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&rsquo;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. 

...I know there are a range of views on the sea lions, and I didn&rsquo;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 &ldquo;Dear Jim, please don&rsquo;t kill my mother&rdquo;!


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 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.


...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&rsquo;t have an observer on-board. 

...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. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>The law stops us saving dolphins</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-11-19T13:50:05+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/9c7fbf1ba4740075ea62c72ff548e5a2-91.html#unique-entry-id-91</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/9c7fbf1ba4740075ea62c72ff548e5a2-91.html#unique-entry-id-91</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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.


&ldquo;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&rsquo;s very hard to follow the behaviour of a fish stock.   It&rsquo;s an imperfect science.


&ldquo;That&rsquo;s why internationally, there is consensus that where information is uncertain ministers should adopt a precautionary approach, and protect a species as a priority.&rdquo;


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&rsquo;s job, on behalf of all New Zealanders, is to protect the sustainability of our fishing resource. 


&ldquo;I couldn&rsquo;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 &ldquo;provided a clearer direction to the minister..to take a cautious approach.


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;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,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton.


Jim Anderton's speech notes at a marine mammals symposium are here.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Jim&#x27;s E-News&#x2c; November 2009</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Newsletters</category><dc:date>2009-11-16T15:00:07+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/300b06f398898ee0195530b3feb2538c-90.html#unique-entry-id-90</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/300b06f398898ee0195530b3feb2538c-90.html#unique-entry-id-90</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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&rsquo;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.


...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 &ndash; Nick Smith wants them to pay three times as much in ACC levies as they are paying today.


...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.


...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?


...Every one avoids the very large lawyers&rsquo; bills and insurance company profits that have to be paid under a private insurance system.


...It&rsquo;s insisting that all imagined accidents in the future should be paid right now by people like the bike riders. 

...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.


...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&rsquo;t pay (in interest rates or hidden bank fees) while the Australian-owned banks make excessive profits.


...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.


...In the last ten years, personal lending has almost doubled, from $60 billion to $105 billion; most of the lending has been for housing.


...Between 2003 and 2009 net overseas liabilities rose from $100.6 billion to $176.3 billion; that&rsquo;s a rise from 76.8% of GDP to 98%.


...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.


...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.


...We have a unique opportunity right now to do something, through the Law Commission&rsquo;s review of the legislation to do with the drinking age, the availability and the advertising of alcohol.


...I welcome the Law Commission&rsquo;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&rsquo;s paper, &lsquo;Alcohol in our Lives&rsquo;.


...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. 

...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.


...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 &lsquo;poverty reduction.


The head of the United Nation&rsquo;s World Food Programme recently announced that tens of millions of the world&rsquo;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.


...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 &lsquo;poverty reduction&rsquo; for our aid, and replace it with a goal of &lsquo;economic development&rsquo;.


I am a strong champion of economic development but you can&rsquo;t do much business development if people don&rsquo;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 &lsquo;best practice&rsquo; in countries with natural resources like oil (or copper in Zambia), so proceeds of those resources go to the poorest people and don&rsquo;t end up in the pockets of the corrupt.


...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 &lsquo;Kiwi Bank&rsquo;.


...The Auditor General&rsquo;s findings about Bill English&rsquo;s accommodation arrangements go significantly further than findings that caused Marion Hobbs and Phillida Bunkle to stand down from ministerial office in 2001. ...  I have been in the same position as Mr Key, in having to make a decision on the future of the Minister. 

...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. 

...The Auditor-General&rsquo;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.


...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.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Urgent inquiry into monetary policy now</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-11-11T10:08:27+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/d94c6538c5e4f91bddaaea8e313fd742-89.html#unique-entry-id-89</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/d94c6538c5e4f91bddaaea8e313fd742-89.html#unique-entry-id-89</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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 &lsquo;big four&rsquo; 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. 


&ldquo;This tells us it doesn&rsquo;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&rsquo;t working.&rdquo;


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;The government can no longer sit on the side-lines and say &lsquo;there&rsquo;s nothing we can do&rsquo;.


&ldquo;We need to look at how we can remove incentives to invest in property, otherwise we&rsquo;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&rsquo;t pay (in interest rates or hidden bank fees) while the Australian-owned banks make excessive profits. 


&ldquo;There&rsquo;s always more we can do.   We just need the political will to do it,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton.


Download the banking inquiry report here.   [Pdf, 3.2 Mb]


Visit the banking inquiry website here.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>&#x2018;Big four&#x2019; banks failed farmers in recession year</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Columns</category><dc:date>2009-11-16T09:00:50+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/66f99851dbc8fb329807d12ee0e7ee11-88.html#unique-entry-id-88</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/66f99851dbc8fb329807d12ee0e7ee11-88.html#unique-entry-id-88</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[It&rsquo;s official; the &lsquo;big four&rsquo; Australian owned banks failed to pass on the Reserve Bank&rsquo;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&rsquo;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&rsquo;re likely to be a home owner too with a mortgage.    You know what it felt like personally.   Here&rsquo;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&rsquo;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&rsquo;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&rsquo;t care that this will likely kick start another housing boom and increase New Zealand&rsquo;s debt, and possibly lead to another recession.   It&rsquo;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&rsquo;t there should be ashamed.   It&rsquo;s not good enough to say &lsquo;there&rsquo;s nothing we can do&rsquo; 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&rsquo;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 &ldquo;There&rsquo;s nothing we can do&rdquo;.   There&rsquo;s always more we can do.   We just need the political will to do it. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CAYAD conference</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Speeches</category><dc:date>2009-11-10T12:00:14+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/20a6baadf8c27479e26f86da00635270-87.html#unique-entry-id-87</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/20a6baadf8c27479e26f86da00635270-87.html#unique-entry-id-87</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Firstly, I would like to thank my friend and colleague Denis O&rsquo;Reilly for reading this to you. 

...I am disappointed not to be with you today, and if it wasn&rsquo;t for the doctor&rsquo;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&rsquo;d all be sick next week!


Talking of the flu - here&rsquo;s an interesting fact for you: 


	&bull;	Twenty people died in New Zealand from Swine Flu this year.


	&bull;	1000 people in New Zealand die each year from alcohol.


And yet you&rsquo;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&rsquo;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. ...  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: &ldquo;We can make a difference&rdquo;.  


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.


...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. ...  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&rsquo;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&rsquo;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%.  

...Currently, $200,000 per day is spent on marketing and advertising alcohol. 

...I would like to see the alcohol sponsorship of sports games banned. ...  We might not always like the big Banks, but at least they&rsquo;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. 

...All Black&rsquo;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 &lsquo;P before I let Denis sit down; I want to see the horror of &lsquo;P&rsquo; gone from our communities.   The truth is the National government&rsquo;s ban on cold remedies at the chemist isn&rsquo;t going to make that much difference.


If we&rsquo;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 &lsquo;P&rsquo; come across our borders from countries like China, India and Indonesia.


So it&rsquo;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 &lsquo;P&rsquo; 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. 

...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. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Use milk payout to farmers to strengthen industry</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-11-09T15:00:22+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/82b46d2ba76ca50ca4baf7771f4df0f0-86.html#unique-entry-id-86</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/82b46d2ba76ca50ca4baf7771f4df0f0-86.html#unique-entry-id-86</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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.&rdquo;


"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.&rdquo;


"Banks should be careful about getting into the same position of lending against valuations based on favourable milk payouts.&rdquo;


"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.&rdquo;


&ldquo;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.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>A generation of kids will be lost - NZ must do more</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-10-29T17:30:34+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/06297353ce7c10c30525e618a38182f6-85.html#unique-entry-id-85</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/06297353ce7c10c30525e618a38182f6-85.html#unique-entry-id-85</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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 &lsquo;poverty reduction,&rdquo; says Progressive leader and MP Jim Anderton.


The head of the United Nation&rsquo;s World Food Programme recently announced that tens of millions of the world&rsquo;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.


&ldquo;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.&rdquo;


About 60% of the Zambian population are living on less than a $1 per day.


&ldquo;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?&rdquo;


The National government has recently announced that it will abolish the goal of &lsquo;poverty reduction&rsquo; for our aid, and replace it with a goal of &lsquo;economic development&rsquo;.


&ldquo;I am a strong champion of economic development - I used to be Minister of Economic Development.   But you can&rsquo;t do much business development if people don&rsquo;t have enough to eat or clean water to drink.&rdquo;


&ldquo;I also want to see the National government do more about bad governance and corruption in some of the poorest countries.&rdquo; 


&ldquo;I want to see New Zealand get behind a new international Natural Resource Charter which sets out &lsquo;best practice&rsquo; in countries with natural resources like oil (or copper in Zambia), so proceeds of those resources go to the poorest people and don&rsquo;t end up in the pockets of the corrupt,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Launch of the Mutima Project</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Speeches</category><dc:date>2009-10-29T17:30:16+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/aca27eb0a1b9e1fb43d383c21925c9a1-84.html#unique-entry-id-84</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/aca27eb0a1b9e1fb43d383c21925c9a1-84.html#unique-entry-id-84</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[I&rsquo;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&rsquo;s the Canterbury Coastguard, community volunteers, or cardiac surgeons - (you might actually be my first group of cardiac surgeons).


Each time, I&rsquo;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 &lsquo;Volunteer!   What else are you going to do with a degree in literature?&rsquo;   You can&rsquo;t say the same about those of you here tonight; &lsquo;what else are you going to do with a degree in cardiac surgery?&rsquo; ...  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&rsquo;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.


...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.&rdquo;


Behind the willingness to volunteer is the recognition that there is an urgent problem, and if you don&rsquo;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&rsquo;s World Food Programme, who warns that food aid is now at its lowest level in 20 years &ndash; 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&rsquo;re talking about the loss of a generation of children to malnutrition, food riots and political destabilisation. 

...And yet our newspapers aren&rsquo;t running headlines telling us about this tragedy; there&rsquo;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&nbsp;% of the Zambian population are reportedly living on less than $1 per day.


...There&rsquo;s a lot we can do, as a country both through our membership of international organisations, and as individuals.


...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&rsquo;s a great shame that NZAID, our aid agency will now be absorbed back into the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.   The goal of &lsquo;poverty reduction&rsquo; for our aid has been replaced with the goal of &lsquo;economic development&rsquo;.


...But you can&rsquo;t do much business development if people don&rsquo;t have enough to eat or clean water to drink, or good quality health care.


...But what we each decide to do as individuals matters too.


Whether you&rsquo;re performing heart surgery on a young person in Zambia and giving them a second chance at life; or whether you&rsquo;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.


...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&rsquo;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.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Who owns the ASB? Not us</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-10-29T16:22:19+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/2d08018f9ac449a6977f81f8bc1b226a-83.html#unique-entry-id-83</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/2d08018f9ac449a6977f81f8bc1b226a-83.html#unique-entry-id-83</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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 &lsquo;Kiwi Bank&rsquo;,  says Progressive MP Jim Anderton.


The ABS is running promotional ads claiming &lsquo;We&rsquo;ve been a Kiwi Bank since 1847.&rdquo;


&ldquo;The truth is we don&rsquo;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?


&ldquo;It used to be owned by the Federal Government of Australia but it was privatised in stages beginning in 1991.&rdquo;


Almost half of the current owners of the Commonwealth Bank are &lsquo;nominee&rsquo; companies.   That means their identities are hidden behind other well-known companies, like the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC).


&ldquo;We don&rsquo;t really know who owns ASB.   All we know for sure is that New Zealand doesn&rsquo;t.&rdquo;


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.


&ldquo;We do however have a New Zealand owned banking network owned by all New Zealanders - and it&rsquo;s called &lsquo;Kiwibank&rsquo;.&rdquo;


&ldquo;The Aussies are welcome to start their own &lsquo;Aussiebank&rsquo; but they shouldn&rsquo;t try to pinch ours,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>An &#x2018;unfortunate&#x2019; arrangement</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-10-28T16:45:56+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/0d975b504f72daa2ccc10d5b6cdf7a14-82.html#unique-entry-id-82</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/0d975b504f72daa2ccc10d5b6cdf7a14-82.html#unique-entry-id-82</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The Auditor General&rsquo;s findings about Bill English&rsquo;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.


&ldquo;This makes Mr English&rsquo;s position as finance minister very difficult,&rdquo; Jim Anderton says.


&ldquo;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.&rdquo;


Jim Anderton wrote to the Auditor-General saying Mr English&rsquo; arrangements needed scrutiny.   The report finds Mr English&rsquo;s arrangements were not within the rules.   The Auditor General&rsquo;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. 


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;The Auditor-General&rsquo;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.


&ldquo;A prudent minister might have noticed the contradiction between those two claims.


&ldquo;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. 


&ldquo;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,&rdquo;


Jim Anderton said. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Nick Smith stigmatises families of suicide victims</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-10-15T13:50:30+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/7175c52b79f554c5177edc2f8cbfe510-81.html#unique-entry-id-81</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/7175c52b79f554c5177edc2f8cbfe510-81.html#unique-entry-id-81</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Minister of ACC, Nick Smith says it was &lsquo;a mistake and wrong&rsquo; for the last Labour-led government to support the families of suicide victims through ACC.


&ldquo;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,&rdquo; 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 &lsquo;throw themselves under a train&rsquo; to get the same treatment for their own families as is available for the bereaved families of suicide victims.


&ldquo;If the children or loved ones of a suicide victim don&rsquo;t get our support through ACC, then where do they get it from?   Is the Minister saying that they don&rsquo;t deserve our support?   Or is he saying that they should go on a sickness benefit?&rdquo;


&ldquo;When he said yesterday that the government&rsquo;s &lsquo;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&rsquo;, he clearly did not mean the families of suicide victims.   He is effectively victimising these most vulnerable of New Zealanders.&rdquo;


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.


&ldquo;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.&rdquo;


&ldquo;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.&rdquo;]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Research and development: from Fast Forward to slow and slower...</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Columns</category><dc:date>2009-10-20T09:04:54+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/8af85a01bf394eaa5a1687808b94aeba-79.html#unique-entry-id-79</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/8af85a01bf394eaa5a1687808b94aeba-79.html#unique-entry-id-79</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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&nbsp;gathering was to create a dedicated fund to finance&nbsp;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 &lsquo;Guardians&rsquo; who would invest it.   Treasury and MAF estimated that the Fund plus interest would reach $2000M over a ten-year period.


&nbsp;    The National-led Government cancelled the Fund. 


The Fast Forward board had already held four meetings and was developing its overall strategy and&nbsp;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.&nbsp;


&nbsp;    Minister of Agriculture David Carter has replaced Fast Forward with the 'Primary Growth Partnership&rsquo; (PGP) which is apparently now 'up and running'&nbsp;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.&nbsp;


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.&nbsp; &nbsp;]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Iconic sports should be free to air&#xa;</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-10-14T13:02:54+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/c052221a859c2bb1e1d1c77250b647e0-78.html#unique-entry-id-78</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/c052221a859c2bb1e1d1c77250b647e0-78.html#unique-entry-id-78</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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.


&ldquo;Does it now accept the principal that all iconic sporting events should be free-to-air?&rdquo;


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.


&ldquo;$8 million would buy a lot of coverage for free-to-air sporting events.&rdquo;


&ldquo;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&rsquo;s Commonwealth Games in Delhi.&rdquo;


For the last forty yearsTVNZ has screened the Commonwealth Games.


&ldquo;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.&rdquo;


&ldquo;At the time Jonathan Coleman said the public could no longer expect major sporting events to be provided free on television.&rdquo;


&ldquo;What&rsquo;s changed?&rdquo;]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Alcohol abuse more serious than methamphetamine&#xd;</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-10-08T16:19:19+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/3db3d39e6a1662a2ee5c32411c37b7e3-77.html#unique-entry-id-77</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/3db3d39e6a1662a2ee5c32411c37b7e3-77.html#unique-entry-id-77</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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&rsquo;s drug policy, Jim Anderton said today. 


&ldquo;It is more serious than the abuse of methamphetamine, even though it is a deadly serious and unacceptable drug.


&ldquo;The Prime Minister and his government&rsquo;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. 


&ldquo;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,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said. 


&ldquo;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. 


&ldquo;Simon Power&rsquo;s statement to the Hospitality Association, as the Minister of Justice and Commerce last Wednesday, that &ldquo;I tend to view liquor law reform through a wide angle lens&rdquo; does not fill me with confidence that the Law Commission&rsquo;s recent &ldquo;Alcohol in our Lives&rdquo; Discussion Document will bring about the liquor law reform that New Zealand needs. 


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;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.


&ldquo;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.


&nbsp;&rdquo;I call on the government to get serious about alcohol abuse.


&ldquo;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&nbsp;especially at sporting events,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said today in Timaru


Jim Anderson is chairing a meeting tonight in T&iuml;maru: "Ten things the alcohol industry won't tell you about alcohol&rdquo;.   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.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Water issues in Canterbury</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Columns</category><dc:date>2009-09-20T16:39:45+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/6ceb57c9289d2a3ba770f79b738c525b-76.html#unique-entry-id-76</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/6ceb57c9289d2a3ba770f79b738c525b-76.html#unique-entry-id-76</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Any farmer knows that water is one of their most valuable resources.&nbsp;


There is an alarming projection which shows that 3 billion people &ndash; half the world&rsquo;s current population &ndash; 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.&nbsp;  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&rsquo;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&rsquo;s small enough not to offend anyone.   It&rsquo;s pleasantly tucked into the hill.   But it services at least seventy farmers in the area.   That&rsquo;s seventy farms that won&rsquo;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.&nbsp;


Now the farmers serviced by the Waimea dam can expect a drought once in twenty years, which is survivable.&nbsp;


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,&nbsp; 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.&nbsp;


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&rsquo;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.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>We have a drinking problem</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Newsletters</category><dc:date>2009-10-05T16:14:00+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/73a46af8828fad52651c9e63d61b4e2c-75.html#unique-entry-id-75</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/73a46af8828fad52651c9e63d61b4e2c-75.html#unique-entry-id-75</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[There is a culture of romanticising heavy drinking in New Zealand.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;  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 &ldquo;Nations, like people, can develop a pathological pattern of alcohol misuse.&rdquo;   That&rsquo;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&rsquo;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&rsquo;s hard to say it out loud: &ldquo;We have a problem with alcohol abuse&rdquo;.   There are a lot of people who use alcohol responsibly, and they feel like their lifestyle is being&nbsp;&nbsp;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&rsquo;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:


	&bull;	Between half and three-quarters of all police work is associated in some way with alcohol abuse.


	&bull;	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.


	&bull;	Researchers estimate that alcohol causes $2,400 million of harm each year.


	&bull;	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 &lsquo;innocent victims&rsquo; 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&rsquo;t have as many choices available to them, are more likely to succumb to peer pressure and are susceptible to advertising.


We recognise there&rsquo;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 &ldquo;Ten things the alcohol industry won&rsquo;t tell you about alcohol&rdquo; and the timetable for the 38 meetings throughout New Zealand, go to www.alcoholaction.co.nz&nbsp;&nbsp;.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;


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&rsquo;s alcohol policies to the Law Commission&rsquo;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.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Coastguards prepare for their busy season.</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-09-25T18:01:48+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/481ff143cc84dddee7c035c7a6e75f9f-74.html#unique-entry-id-74</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/481ff143cc84dddee7c035c7a6e75f9f-74.html#unique-entry-id-74</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[&ldquo;On an average day the Coastguard around New Zealand make ten rescues.   That&rsquo;s more than 3500 incidents a year, and over 5000 people a year who might not be with us today if it wasn&rsquo;t for these volunteers,&rdquo; says Progressive leader and MP for Wigram, Jim Anderton.


&ldquo;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.&rdquo;


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.


&ldquo;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?


&ldquo;There are still New Zealand boaties out there who think they are indestructible; they don&rsquo;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.


&ldquo;That&rsquo;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.


&ldquo;They need all the funding they can get, and it doesn&rsquo;t make sense for boaties filling their boats with fuel to pay a road tax.&rdquo;


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.


&ldquo;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,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said. 


&ldquo;Your service is an inspiration.   New Zealanders owe you a debt of gratitude, and I wish you a successful and safe summer,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Coastguard conference 2009</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Speeches</category><dc:date>2009-09-25T18:00:07+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/fa856c10d427a3b0e24cf5c625a8114b-73.html#unique-entry-id-73</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/fa856c10d427a3b0e24cf5c625a8114b-73.html#unique-entry-id-73</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[As patrons of Canterbury Coastguard, Carole and I have much pleasure in being here for the annual conference of the NZ Coastguard.


...Each time I meet with you I&rsquo;m struck again by your dedication and personal commitment to serve your fellow New Zealanders.


...I&rsquo;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. 

...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.


...He said: "I got my first impression of this town from the first confession I heard here. ...  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. 

...&ldquo;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.&rdquo;


..."In fact, I had the honour of being the first person to go to him for confession.....&rdquo;


It&rsquo;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.


...But what would we do if we didn't have people around who give so much to helping others?


I&rsquo;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.


...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.


...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.


...That&rsquo;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&rsquo;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&rsquo;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. 

...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.


...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! 

...And without the Coastguard, marine recreation and our Kiwi lifestyle on the water would be very different.


...And the coastguard is there as a safety service to help them out.


...And it&rsquo;s potentially over 5600 people who may not be with us today if it wasn&rsquo;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.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Mourning the loss of a passionate New Zealander</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-09-24T14:20:29+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/9bc8502b12a81d2fcd93bd51437aa682-72.html#unique-entry-id-72</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/9bc8502b12a81d2fcd93bd51437aa682-72.html#unique-entry-id-72</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[&ldquo;Howard Morrison was more than a world-class and unique entertainer; he was a fierce advocate for a fair go for all New Zealanders,&rdquo; says Progressive leader Jim Anderton.


&ldquo;It is not widely known that Sir Howard was passionately committed to the economic development of New Zealand &ndash; and in particular for Maori economic development and an equal place for Maori in New Zealand society.


&ldquo;He never sought political glory, even though he was driven by strong convictions and beliefs all his life.


&ldquo;His political and community work often went unnoticed.   He put together formidable kapa haka groups of young people which reflected his absolute genius and understanding of the performing arts.   He instilled in the young people he mentored a sense of self-worth and self disciple.   He was a fierce opponent of drug and alcohol misuse.


&ldquo;He worked with me on campaigns to turn young people away from drugs and alcohol and he stood beside us when we formed the Progressive Party.   His kapa haka group, Te Wero, performed at the inaugural conference of the Progressives in 2003, and they were a wonderful testament to him.


Sir Howard approached me at a difficult time to lend his support and was not concerned that this could make him unpopular with certain people.   I have always admired him greatly.


&ldquo;He was passionate about making New Zealand a better place.


&ldquo;Many New Zealanders have lost a good friend.   We shared a belief in the talents of people in the regions of New Zealand, and a determination to&nbsp;support all New Zealanders, no matter where they come from, to realise their dreams and to aspire to be the best that they can.


&ldquo;He kept a low-profile politically.   But he was driven to do things for people, and because of his status as one of our most loved entertainers, his legacy will live on.


&ldquo;He will be much missed by us all,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Fonterra capital restructuring  </title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-09-18T16:43:02+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/17562867863f12ed9934872390bd9cb8-71.html#unique-entry-id-71</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/17562867863f12ed9934872390bd9cb8-71.html#unique-entry-id-71</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The Opposition will be listening very carefully to farmer comment about the proposals, agriculture spokesperson Jim Anderton says.


"New proposals for Fonterra's capital restructuring appear to provide more stability for Fonterra and avoid the trap of opening the back door to overseas ownership.


"It's difficult to balance the ambition of a global multinational with the benefits of a cooperative structure, and if farmers accept the latest proposal then it will be a good sign for the future of Fonterra and of our dairy company that the right balance has been reached.


"But the government should be careful not to bully farmers into the deal.   Farmers know better than the government what is best for their own businesses.   Government's role is to help where it can make a difference and step in when wider community interests are at stake.   It shouldn't replace farmers' own judgments about the best capital structure for them, when farmers have legitimate interests to look out for."]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Waikato innovation park opened</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-09-16T15:52:23+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/fd054ab68ca058e550c0ba01204c94bd-70.html#unique-entry-id-70</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/fd054ab68ca058e550c0ba01204c94bd-70.html#unique-entry-id-70</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Jim Anderton was in Hamilton today to mark the further development of a project begun by the last Labour-led government; the formal opening of the now Tetra Pak building at Waikato Innovation Park.


As Minister of Economic Development, Mr Anderton had championed the initial establishment of the Park.


&ldquo;I believed strongly that establishing and developing the park would help New Zealand agri-technology businesses to grow and develop,&rdquo; says Opposition spokesperson on agriculture and Progressive leader, Jim Anderton.


&ldquo;This is how governments actively support innovation and New Zealand business.


&ldquo;It&rsquo;s very disappointing that under the new National government support for big and bold ideas like this is less likely to occur.


&ldquo;Our tax credits for businesses who invest in Research and Development for example, have been removed.   That means a tax increase of about $1 billion over three years for anyone wanting to support initiatives like the Tetra Pak building.&rdquo;


The Tetra Pak building will house many innovative companies working in the agricultural sector, including the multinational food processing and packaging company Tetra Pak, New Zealand Industry Training Organisation, and many others.   It will house approximately 180 staff, doubling the size of the workforce at the Waikato Innovation Park.


Securing big multinational tenants like Tetra Pak means that the Park is now housing businesses which come up with new ideas to improve value for money from on-farm to processing activities. 


&ldquo;Only six years ago this was just a paddock of grass.   Now it&rsquo;s set to become a major contributor to wealth-creation in New Zealand.


&ldquo;We need more centers of innovation like this across New Zealand.   You don&rsquo;t grow the economy with cycle tracks and small ideas.   You need big and bold ideas.   I wish the Waikato Innovation Park the best of luck for the future,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>&#x22;Jim was the man...&#x22;</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><dc:subject>Latest News</dc:subject><dc:date>2009-09-15T18:07:24+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/e94377ba464ffc6a1890dc45872f31bf-69.html#unique-entry-id-69</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/e94377ba464ffc6a1890dc45872f31bf-69.html#unique-entry-id-69</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[A gracious comment from Labour MP Clayton Cosgrove on the Labour MPs&rsquo; collective blog, about the opening of Sydenham police station. 


&ldquo;I was absolutely gobsmacked on Friday when [the Police Minister] opened the new Christchurch South police station, and failed to mention the immense debt this new building owes to the advocacy of Progressive MP Jim Anderton over a decade and a half.   Instead, Collins trumpeted the new building as proof of National&rsquo;s commitment to police and policing.   National had nothing to do with this new station except as de facto purchasers of the ribbon Judith Collins cut.&rdquo;


Here&rsquo;s Jim&rsquo;s statement on opening day.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Bill to stop MPs standing for Parliament</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-09-11T12:00:00+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/6a1236334e92cb111027a40fcfeefa84-67.html#unique-entry-id-67</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/6a1236334e92cb111027a40fcfeefa84-67.html#unique-entry-id-67</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[New Bill designed to stop MPs standing for election when they are already elected


Jim Anderton has drafted a Bill designed to stop current members of parliament from standing for election to parliament in a by-election.


The Bill will be placed in the Member&rsquo;s Ballot.   The next ballot for Member&rsquo;s Bills is expected to be drawn next Thursday.


&ldquo;It&rsquo;s a nonsense that people can stand for election to parliament when they&rsquo;ve already members of parliament,&rdquo; says Member of Parliament for Wigram and Progressive leader, Jim Anderton


&ldquo;What would rate-payers think if a member of a city council stood in a by-election to become a city councillor?&rdquo;


In this year&rsquo;s Mt Albert by-election, three out of the four main candidates were already members of parliament.   Only the Labour Party candidate, David Shearer was not already an MP.   Mr Shearer went on to win the by-election.


&ldquo;There should be a rule that if you want to stand in a by-election, you first resign your seat in parliament. 


&ldquo;It&rsquo;s not acceptable that M.Ps like Russell Norman for the Green Party, Melissa Lee for National, and John Boscawan for the Act Party used tax-payers&rsquo; money to run a campaign to get elected to parliament when they had already been elected.   In reality they were using their parliamentary salaries and resources to try and win the by-election and bring another MP into parliament on their party list.


&ldquo;If the Bill is introduced, existing M.P.s will have to make a meaningful choice - if they really want to run for a seat, they will need to resign from parliament and contest it on the same basis as anyone else.   If a list member is so keen to represent the people of a particular electorate, his/her party can open an office there. 


&ldquo;In a general election, an electorate MP has no insurance.   They have to win enough votes in their electorate or for their party to return to Parliament.   It is inconsistent at the very least, to have different rules in a by-election,&rdquo; says Jim Anderton.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Opening of Sydenham police station</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-09-11T14:00:00+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/16cba02712a98203806210a79fe96cc8-66.html#unique-entry-id-66</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/16cba02712a98203806210a79fe96cc8-66.html#unique-entry-id-66</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Jim delivers on his promise


Twenty years ago, local MP Jim Anderton was promised funding to build a new police station in Sydenham.   He put out a press release to announce the good news. 


The 1984 press release has been pinned on the police notice board ever since.


&ldquo;I was promised that the Christchurch South Police would have a new station in two to three years,&rdquo; MP for Wigram Jim Anderton said.


But the funding never eventuated, until the last Labour-led government.


&ldquo;I&rsquo;m told that the police are going to frame the old press release from 1984 and give it to me!


&ldquo;When I first arrived in Christchurch and stood as an MP in 1984, I could see that the police had totally inadequate facilities and were spread out over three sites which was hard to administer. 


&ldquo;In the 1984 &ndash;1990 Labour government, I kept reminding the Cabinet of their promise.   In the years of the Labour-Progressive government of 1999 &ndash; 2008, I promised my Labour Cabinet colleagues that the only way they would get rid of me was to build the Christchurch South Police Station. 


&ldquo;That&rsquo;s why I was thrilled to be present when the former Minister of Police, Annette King, laid the foundation for the new building last year and am thrilled that the police are finally in their new headquarters,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said today. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Jim Anderton&#x2019;s speech to the Labour Party Conference  </title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Speeches</category><dc:date>2009-09-11T19:30:00+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/6df4fc7f348ff5e91d420b5d5e5f4cff-65.html#unique-entry-id-65</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/6df4fc7f348ff5e91d420b5d5e5f4cff-65.html#unique-entry-id-65</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[I said the time had come to clear the way for our members to work together, in recognition of our common values; In recognition of the years we spent in government together; and in recognition that cooperation between us is in the best interests of the people we represent.


...Anyone with a sense of our history will be moved by the determination and purpose with which we are pushing ahead. 


...A New Zealand in which we work together for the benefit of all new Zealanders.


...And I particularly remember our coalition government&rsquo;s decision to refuse to send troops to Iraq as a part of the unilateral action led by the USA and the UK. 


It was the right decision and I can tell you that no-one was more supportive of that decision than Phil Goff as Minister of Foreign Affairs and that is just one of the reasons I strongly support his leadership of the New Zealand Labour Party. 


But then last year New Zealanders looked at our government, and chose not to keep us there. 

...Not because they rejected low unemployment; not because they no longer wanted government to deliver for ordinary families; not because they wanted a return to asset sales and cuts in public services.


...National said you didn&rsquo;t have more money in your pocket because the Labour-Progressive government wouldn&rsquo;t spend the surpluses.


...Anyone who says our economic problems would be solved by selling Meridian energy or the Ports of Auckland is looking in the wrong place for the wrong solutions


The days are over when it could be credibly argued that radical restructuring would deliver jobs and raise incomes while herds of unicorns would guide us down golden pathways to the future.


When I was a young political organiser, I was stirred to action in part by the call to public service of President Kennedy, immortalised in the memorable line, &ldquo;Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.&rdquo;


...If we want to do better, and provide a better future for our children and grandchildren than the legacy we have inherited from the 80s and 90s, then we need to rediscover our common purpose.


...Because we want the mother with four kids who comes into my office with a $400 power bill to have a warm home, a good income and an opportunity for her kids to get well paid, skilled jobs when they leave school.


Because we want the young family that comes to see me with unaffordable dental bills to have access to life long, high quality, affordable dental health care. 


Because we want superannuitants who come to see me with soaring rents for their home to be able to enjoy their retirement in affordable, housing. 


Because we want the business that is taking on staff and growing to have access to the science and global networks that will help to create jobs and generate income in and for New Zealand.


President Obama said last year, &ldquo;we are at our best when we lead with principle; when we lead with conviction; when we summon an entire nation around a common purpose &ndash; a higher purpose.&rdquo;


...We have to be the voice of and for people who want to do better. 

...If we want our streets free from crime, we must put something back into the community so it offers potential criminals a stake, and a place to which they belong.


It is not acceptable that many elderly New Zealanders as well as low income families can not afford to heat their homes in winter.   Nor is it acceptable that less than 66 per cent of all New Zealanders can afford to own their own home and that percentage is falling rapidly, while many of those who don&rsquo;t, will never be able to do so. 


And I still find the fact that the mental health system is the Cinderella of the physical health system something to be ashamed of as a New Zealander while more of us commit suicide than the numbers killed on our roads each year. 


We need to do better at making our side of politics a thriving part of the regions of New Zealand.   The Labour-progressive government did more for regional New Zealand than any government in recent memory &ndash; and, it has to be said, for less political reward.  


...So much so that between 1949 and 1984, a period of 35 years, National was in government for 29 and Labour for just 6 years. 

...But even last year, as Labour lost both urban and non-urban based seats all over New Zealand, there were still hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who didn&rsquo;t vote for this government.


...This gave us not only an army for our election machine but enthusiasm, high morale and momentum which in the end overwhelmed our political opponents. 


...Without organization and membership, you won&rsquo;t raise the money that it will take to change the government.


...Your National opponents have 9 seats with a majority of less than 2000 votes where a two-party swing of less than 3% to Labour would win all of them. 


If you include Wigram on your side you only need one more seat to hold more electorate seats than National. 

...To win the party vote you need a two party swing of 5.84% which would give you an additional 277,573 party votes. 

...If you think you are in a tough situation try coming back from a coup against your leader in the middle of an election campaign!


...My campaign organiser said to me before the election in 1990 as the NewLabour candidate for Sydenham that we would win by 4012 votes. 

...And in the first week after the election we were working on getting back the three votes we had failed to get. 

...It comes from listening to New Zealanders, in regions and towns and from winning the trust and confidence of people we seek to represent. 

...We have already contributed a state of the art, modern election organization manual to almost all MPs and it is available to all candidates and campaign managers. 

...To achieve this result over the next two and a half years will require clear strategic goals, high quality campaign planning, tight discipline and superior organizational ability and capability.  

...And our members will be out on the streets again in 2011 helping to re-elect a Labour-led government. 


...That when we choose to invest in our future, and in jobs, then New Zealand can again join the first rank of nations. 


...That is the New Zealand we must commit ourselves to help re-build in just 2 years time. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Power company profits at the expense of consumers</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-09-04T13:00:48+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/b93c54866c6835e3171bdf7ebdd41b50-64.html#unique-entry-id-64</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/b93c54866c6835e3171bdf7ebdd41b50-64.html#unique-entry-id-64</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The enormous profit declared by Mighty River Power shows that&nbsp;electricity companies have been overcharging consumers, Progressive MP&nbsp;Jim Anderton says.


He is calling for some of the dividend from the power companies to go to&nbsp;consumers as a rebate instead of the government as a dividend.


&ldquo;I have record numbers of people approaching my electorate office with&nbsp;problems paying their power bills at the same time that a state owned&nbsp;power company is declaring a record profit, and paying the government&nbsp;a dividend of $230 million dollars.


&ldquo;One way or another, the profits of the power companies are earned&nbsp;from the consumer paying power bills.   The public energy companies are effectively being used as a form of tax &ndash; for providing a strategic essential service like electricity.


&ldquo;I have people like a solo mother with four kids coming to see me with&nbsp;a $450 power bill at the same time that a public energy company is&nbsp;paying the government a special dividend of $150 million.&rdquo;


Jim Anderton has been highlighting cases in his electorate that&nbsp;include a solo mother with an eleven month old baby who got a power bill&nbsp;for $369 for a four-week period; A low income young working couple in&nbsp;a Housing NZ flat got a power bill for $400 for four weeks, and a&nbsp;superannuitant living alone in his own home got a power bill for $205.


"Many families are wondering how they will pay their bills.   Power&nbsp;bills have been driven up by a combination of an early start to&nbsp;winter, with very cold months early this year, and power bills that haverisen faster than inflation.   The result is that many low income familiesare frightened to turn their heaters on, even in the middle of winter.


"Instead of making record profits, publicly-owned power companies should&nbsp;be charging consumers less,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said.&nbsp;]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Banks should front up</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-09-03T16:00:19+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/8c8a458cf39e405548c40004d1592304-63.html#unique-entry-id-63</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/8c8a458cf39e405548c40004d1592304-63.html#unique-entry-id-63</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[&ldquo;The big Australian banks would have helped themselves more if they had openly fronted up to questions at the multi-party inquiry on banking,&rdquo; Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.


This week ANZ National Bank released its financial results for the last nine months, and prepared a paper on the impact of the credit crunch on New Zealand Banks.


&ldquo;I am interested in their views.   The rest of the world is having an open debate about the banking sector right now.   The owners of banks here front up in their home countries.   They should front up here, too.


&ldquo;New Zealanders who are struggling with high interest rates for their mortgages, their businesses and their farms would have been very interested in what banks had to say.


&ldquo;Ralph Norris, chief executive of the ASB Bank in Australia, welcomed the inquiry as an opportunity to clear up some &lsquo;myths&rsquo; the very same week the ASB said it didn&rsquo;t want to contribute to better understanding of the issues.&rdquo;


Today the Banking inquiry completed its public hearings.   A final report will be released shortly.


Submissions were heard from business organisions, members of the public, and community groups from across New Zealand, including Kiwi Bank; New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association; FINSEC; Federated Farmers; CTU and many others.


&ldquo;I would like to see a cross-party agreement on how we improve the performance of the whole financial sector in New Zealand, for the sake of those who pay too much in interest charges and bank fees, and for the sake of our businesses, and for the future of our economy and living standards in New Zealand &rdquo; Jim Anderton said.


PHOTOS here.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Act irresponsible in walking out too quickly</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-08-20T12:38:37+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/15f570b79b60f7b9ebec9c2d2d93512a-62.html#unique-entry-id-62</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/15f570b79b60f7b9ebec9c2d2d93512a-62.html#unique-entry-id-62</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Making threats to get your way in government as Act leader Rodney Hide is doing is the wrong way to go about getting cooperation in government, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.


He has led two smaller coalition partners in government.   He says Rodney Hide is threatening to flounce out of government if he doesn&rsquo;t get his way.


&ldquo;It&rsquo;s counter-productive as a means to get the policy you want, and it is a bad way to govern.   When two parties cannot handle their differences without one walking out, it says either there is bad faith at the heart of government, or one party is not up to the challenges of government.


&ldquo;It is inevitable when there is more than one party in government that there will be some issues on which the parties feel passionate and have different views.   If one party stomped out every time it couldn&rsquo;t get what it wanted, then cooperation and coalition could never happen.


&ldquo;Mr Hide thinks Act will win some support over the Maori seats issue, but it will lose more credibility than it gains.   The public will see Mr Hide as irresponsible - and that is a larger problem for Mr Hide than the policy at stake.


&ldquo;Larger parties will never be seen to be allowing the tail to wag the dog.   All Act can do by walking out is make itself irrelevant.   For small parties, there are a lot of bitter pills to swallow.   If your ideas are popular, the larger party will adopt them as their own anyway, but at least you get your policy adopted.


&ldquo;The way to get what you want is by constructive argument and dealing with the objections of your partner, not by making threats.   If they couldn&rsquo;t agree and believe the issue is so important, Act should have reached an agreement that another minister would take over the relevant bill, allowing Act to vote against it.


&ldquo;Making every important issue a make or break one means that eventually the relationship will break or at least be less effective.


&ldquo;I would be pleased to see someone else than Mr Hide as Minister for Local Government, however.   He clearly doesn&rsquo;t like local bodies or the constructive role they play in the development of their communities and that is hardly a good qualification for being their minister.&rdquo;]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Time has come for Kiwibank critics to admit they were wrong</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-08-20T12:37:13+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/b980dceadd4c75bd0d29e918aa7d4bd3-61.html#unique-entry-id-61</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/b980dceadd4c75bd0d29e918aa7d4bd3-61.html#unique-entry-id-61</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The time has come for Kiwibank&rsquo;s critics to admit they were wrong, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says, after the people&rsquo;s bank today announced an after-tax profit of $52.5 million for the past year.


Loans grew by 52 per cent.   Retail deposits grew by 39 per cent.


&ldquo;The decision to set up a New Zealand-owned bank was the right one.


&ldquo;Kiwibank has been an overwhelming success.


&ldquo;It&rsquo;s great that we have our own bank performing so well at a time of international financial crisis.   We don&rsquo;t have to be dependent on overseas financial markets.   Those markets right now look like the dog that critics claimed that Kiwibank would be.


&ldquo;Kiwibank&rsquo;s success results from its commitment to the New Zealand community that other banks don&rsquo;t have: Its profits stay here and help New Zealand.   It doesn&rsquo;t get involved in large tax avoidance schemes.   Kiwibank opened a larger branch network than the other banks, and as a result those banks have stopped closing their branches.   And Kiwibank charges lower interest rates and fees than its overseas competitors.


&ldquo;When Kiwibank was set up, National and Act &ndash; and their cheerleaders &ndash; said New Zealanders couldn&rsquo;t run our own bank.   They were wrong.   Today would be a graceful day to admit it.&rdquo;]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Farmers to pay for Auckland roads</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-08-19T17:58:26+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/ebd85ba4697e231d70db95e1fb3264cf-60.html#unique-entry-id-60</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/ebd85ba4697e231d70db95e1fb3264cf-60.html#unique-entry-id-60</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Farmers will be paying more for Auckland roads because of National&rsquo;s decision to replace a regional fuel tax with a general increase in petrol tax, Opposition agriculture spokesperson Jim Anderton says.


&ldquo;The roads are still regional, but now the bill is national.


&ldquo;There aren&rsquo;t many farms in Auckland.   But farmers will be getting the bill for Auckland roads.


&ldquo;When we had a regional tax, a tunnel under Auckland would have been paid by Auckland motorists.   Now they have axed the tunnel, and sent the bill to farmers and others outside Auckland.   Everyone loses.


&ldquo;Fuel costs are an important input cost for farmers.   When petrol tax goes up, their input costs go up.


&ldquo;It can be fair to charge someone more when they get more of the benefit.   But farmers and others in rural communities get less benefit from new Auckland roads than Aucklanders do,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Sending NZ SAS to Afghanistan </title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Speeches</category><dc:date>2009-08-18T16:54:28+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/b9cc0e0a1f34f10b05671f78a8045bb6-59.html#unique-entry-id-59</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/b9cc0e0a1f34f10b05671f78a8045bb6-59.html#unique-entry-id-59</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Jim Anderton&rsquo;s speech in Parliament&rsquo;s urgent debate on sending NZ SAS to Afghanistan


The Progressive Party was established only after a policy disagreement over intervention in Afghanistan.   So we have passionate views about this issue.


And today we believe we must continue to support stability in Afghanistan, but the days when we should have combat troops there are over.


In 2002 Progressive supported New Zealand involvement in Afghanistan because the situation there at the time represented a clear and present threat to the civilised world.


Al qaeda had just committed a terrorist atrocity in the United States.&nbsp;


I was acting prime minister the day it happened.&nbsp;


One of those killed in the US attacks was a New Zealand citizen.


I sent a message to the US President saying New Zealand saw the attack as an attack on not only the United States, but on all civilised society.   And I promised New Zealand would stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States in resisting the terrorist attacks, and we kept that promise.


The al qaeda threat was a global threat.&nbsp;


The Taleban responded to those attacks by giving al qaeda shelter.&nbsp;


In the football stadiums where election rallies are being held today, the Taleban were then carrying out mass executions for their perverted political ends.


The world could not stand by and ignore what was being done to civilisation.


The Secretary General of the UN at the time said: &ldquo;The only way to win against terrorism is to organise a common international action.   The main point is that the fight be led within the&nbsp; framework of the United Nations on the basis of the two Security Council resolutions and the General Assembly resolutions.&rdquo;


...International law makes it clear that the only grounds for military intervention are self-defence or UN-sanction.   And so UN authority for the Afghanistan intervention was vital to ensure it complied with international law.


Once that was decided, our involvement was to send provincial reconstruction teams.


...Willie Apiata&rsquo;s Victoria Cross is proof of that.


But you cannot send children to school and sick people to hospital, and you cannot develop economies and end poverty, when terrorists are doing their best to kill and to threaten entire communities.


So I supported SAS involvement in Afghanistan to help reconstruction. 

...But it&rsquo;s not an open-ended commitment.   What we cannot support is involvement that tries to take sides in the feudal infighting in Afghanistan today.   There are layers of sides in Afghanistan.   We can&rsquo;t pick one over the other.


We can help the country to clear itself of al qaeda, however.   We must have United Nations authority to do so.   We must have a firm base in international law.


...That would give not only Afghanistan, but northern Pakistan to&nbsp; the Taleban and to other ideological extremists.


Pakistan is a nuclear state.   I don&rsquo;t like that it is - but it is. ...  The consequences of a nuclear state like Pakistan becoming even more unstable are too dangerous to tolerate.   The whole world has a strong interest in making sure that doesn&rsquo;t happen.


The best contribution we can make is to support stability in Afghanistan.   Therefore we should offer to be there and to help. 


But I do not support doing so through a continued combat role for the SAS in Afghanistan.


...We have spent over $180 million on military assistance and aid there.


This is a debate about the kind of assistance we offer.   Our contribution today has to be towards rebuilding, and helping strengthen the Afghan National Army under democratic control following the elections later this week.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Comment on agriculture&#x2c; August 2009</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Columns</category><dc:date>2009-08-20T06:42:00+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/28d4317f166aa16bab9cb3ee7ba69835-58.html#unique-entry-id-58</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/28d4317f166aa16bab9cb3ee7ba69835-58.html#unique-entry-id-58</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Comment for Canterbury Farmer August 09.


When new targets for reducing our carbon emissions were released, Federated Farmers said they remain concerned about the impact on farming and the wider economy.


It&rsquo;s not hard to see why, considering the importance of farming to our economy.


If an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is reached, it is likely to require that emissions targets are stricter for rich countries than for poor ones.   Alone among developed countries, agriculture makes up a huge share of our total greenhouse gas emissions.   Other economies that are dominated by agriculture are poor. 


If our farmers have to pay for emissions while, their competitors in poor countries don&rsquo;t, the hit on our economy will be substantial.


But there are other factors we need to consider.&nbsp; 


Greenhouse gas emissions cause climate changes, and if no global agreement is reached to do something, climate change is likely to damage our agriculture.


Getting an agreement on climate change suits us, because no other developed country is as dependent on climate as we are.   Just ask farmers who had to cope with long, crushing droughts in recent years whether climate change was good for their businesses.


I think this point is avoided by critics who talk about other developed countries leaving agriculture out of agreements, or who question climate change altogether.   Their approach is not prudent - careful management requires that we manage risks, and climate change represents a big risk to New Zealand agriculture and therefore to our economy.


We have to do our bit if we are going to get the rest of the world to do theirs.


I heard our trade negotiations minister, Mr Groser, say that the government will be very cautious in climate change talks.   We will follow other countries and we won&rsquo;t try to set an example of best practice. 


Mr Groser used to be one of our trade negotiators, and he argued exactly the opposite approach - when he talks about global free trade he talks about leading the world, setting a good example and being the purest of the pure.   Now he wants a change of approach when it comes to climate change. 


The inconsistency will cost us credibility.


Maybe Mr Groser doesn&rsquo;t believe in climate change.   But even if he doesn&rsquo;t believe the science, it&rsquo;s still bad for farming to hold out against the world. 


We won&rsquo;t get our competitors in India, China and Brazil to sign up to emissions agreements if we don&rsquo;t pull our weight, and we won&rsquo;t get consumers in rich countries to pay a premium for pure New Zealand food if they perceive us as dirty.


So on business grounds alone, we need to do our bit.


The best approach to reduce our total emissions would be more forestry planting, more research into technology that can help farmers reduce emissions, more renewable energy generation and energy conservation, better pubic transport and more use of biofuels.


That would take some pressure off farming businesses.&nbsp;


Unfortunately, farmers are being hung out to dry by decisions that have scaled back progress on all these fronts.


My worry is that the result will be that farmers eventually get dumped with all the costs of climate change, and none of the help they should have to deal with the costs.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Families in energy poverty while Brownlee looks for magic pudding&#xa;solution</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-08-12T14:41:00+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/6fc7cd9af2f7b4f3ed7a85c434245fe5-57.html#unique-entry-id-57</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/6fc7cd9af2f7b4f3ed7a85c434245fe5-57.html#unique-entry-id-57</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[New recommendations on energy costs provide no hope of quick relief for


households facing huge power bills this year, Progressive Wigram MP Jim


Anderton says.


"Gerry Brownlee is relying on a magic pudding solution that reduces


costs but no one's going to pay. 


"Finding a new structure in energy could take years, while there is a


crisis of electricity poverty this winter," Jim Anderton says.


His Wigram electorate office has been inundated with record numbers of


people who can't afford their winter power bills.


For example, a solo mother with an eleven month old baby got a power


bill for $369 for a four-week period.   A low income young working couple


in a Housing NZ flat got a power bill for $400 for four weeks, and a


superannuitant living alone in his own home got a power bill for $205. 


"Many families are wondering how they will pay their bills.   Power bills


have been driven up by a combination of an early start to winter, with


very cold months early this year, and power bills that have risen faster


than inflation.


"There are alternatives.   The state of Victoria, for example, provides


low-income households with more than $1 billion a year in concessions


for essential services.   It pays a rebate to some households that reduces


the cost of LPG heating gas.   In the United Kingdom, the government


provides a winter fuel payment of NZ$750 for pensioners over 60, and it


pays NZ$1200 for the over-80s.


"Today's review shows energy companies are charging too much for power


and some of those profits should be used to help very poor New Zealand


households," Jim Anderton said.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Matt Robson speech:  Towards an Arctic Nuclear Weapons&#xa;Free Zone</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Speeches</category><dc:date>2009-08-10T13:49:13+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/aa28a11b7ed8eead2f34831f38a72266-56.html#unique-entry-id-56</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/aa28a11b7ed8eead2f34831f38a72266-56.html#unique-entry-id-56</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Over 2.5 billion human beings, 40% of the world&rsquo;s population, have to try and live on less than US$2 per day. 

...Yet those whom Bob Dylan called &lsquo;the masters of war&rsquo; have determined that rather than meeting these basic needs of humanity ,that military spending will take priority and  that  that spending needs indeed to increase.


...In 2007 $1.338 trillion was spent on arms and other military expenditure, corresponding to 2.5 per cent of global Gross Domestic Product, or GDP &ndash; or $202 for each of the world&rsquo;s 6.6 billion people.


The United States spends by far the most toward military aims, officially dishing out $547 billion last year, or 45 percent of global expenditure.   Britain, China, France and Japan, their next group of big military spenders, lag far behind at just 4 to 5 percent of world military costs each.


...When all nuclear warheads are counted &ndash; operational warheads, spares, those in both active and inactive storage, and intact warheads to be dismantled, the nuclear armed states have 25,000 warheads.


...Not with rogue states and terrorist groups but in the military installations of the largest and most powerful states and a number of them in the fragile ecosystem of the Arctic region.


 SIPRI concludes that the 5 nuclear states defined by the NPT in 1968 - China, France, Russia, the UK the USA - are all in the process of deploying new nuclear weapons or have announced their intention to do so. 


...North America 65 per cent, the Middle East by 62 per cent, South Asia by 57 per cent and Africa and East Asia by 51 per cent each.


...Joseph Stieglitz and Linda Bilmes in their wonderful research for the &ldquo;Three Trillion Dollar War&rdquo;, published in 2008, estimated that the USA had spent three trillion dollars on George Bush and Tony Blair&rsquo;s war against Iraq. 

...A trillion dollars could have built 8 million additional housing units, could have hired some 15 million additional public school teachers for one year; could have paid for 120 million children to attend a year of head start; or insured 530 million children for health care for one year; or provided 43 million students with four &ndash; year scholarships at public universities. 

...They then go on to calculate the effect if the money or even a fraction of it, for the war had been devoted to development goals for the poorest countries:


For sums less than the direct expenditures on the war, we could have fulfilled our commitment to provide 7 per cent of our gross domestic product to help developing countries &ndash; money that could have made an enormous difference to the well-being of billions living in poverty today ... two trillion dollars would enable us to meet our commitments to the poorest countries for the next third of a century.


...If a referendum was held of the world&rsquo;s peoples on whether military expenditure should be greatly decreased and for the abolition of all nuclear weapons in favour of the goals set out by Stieglitz and Bilmes my money would be on the bet that a thumping majority would vote yes.


Our task at this conference is to be part of a movement to mobilise humanity so that that referendum becomes a reality and a movement of solidarity across the globe grows and its voice becomes one that cannot be ignored. 


...Creating an Arctic nuclear-free zone will be an important part of building that political force will redress the imbalance with the Antarctic and will provide an important impetus to the goal of the total abolition of all nuclear weapons.


...When all the countries of Africa below the equator are committed to the Treaty of Pelindaba, and that is almost complete, then every country in the southern hemisphere will be free of nuclear weapons.


This means the Pacific countries, those in Asia, Latin America and now Africa have committed themselves to  rid not only their own territories of nuclear weapons but  also to being part of the overwhelming number of countries committed to their total abolition.


We in New Zealand, at government level, and among the people, have long supported the call not just for a southern hemisphere nuclear weapons free zone but one that incorporates adjacent areas as well.


We are well aware that the indigenous peoples of the Pacific, in the north and south, have led the way in our region to be nuclear-free. 

...And at the Antarctic, that area so important for the whole planet, a nuclear weapons free zone, a military free zone, has been in place since the Treaty of Antarctica of 1959.   It is unimaginable now that humanity would accept nuclear weapons or any military activity in this precious heritage area for the earth. 


The Madrid Protocol of 1991 to the Treaty of Antarctica has reinforced the Antarctic&rsquo;s peaceful status by proclaiming that it is a natural reserve and the only activities permitted under international law are those devoted to peaceful purposes, scientific research and protection of the environment. 

...It is more than time, 50 years later that Antarctica is balanced by its polar opposite at the Arctic, equally important for the survival of life on this planet.   The Arctic must be declared a nuclear weapons free zone for the sake of humanity for the sake of the world&rsquo;s ecosystem. 

...And that NWFZ for the Arctic is what this conference will set its sights on


...Remembering the westerns I had seen on so many Saturday afternoons as a child, where they practised the John Wayne method, I suggested to the nuclear powers represented at the conference that it would be a big step forward for disarmament if they committed to check in their nuclear weapons at the Equator before entering the Southern Hemisphere. 


Exactly how this would work in practice, and how the weapons would be stored and safeguarded, I had not worked out at that stage. 

...Needless to say my proposal did not receive a warm welcome from the five declared nuclear powers of the NPT, in particular the United States. 

...I can advise however, that in talks with the representative of China he did state that China would commit to such a policy and that China would respect the NWFZ status of the Southern Hemisphere if all other countries did.


...First of all we should remember what a step forward it would be to the goal of the NPT of abolishing all nuclear weapons if the Arctic gained the status of Antarctica.


Then we should remember the patient building and mobilising of public opinion that went into creating the NWFZ that now exist, including the most recent one in 2006 in the central Asian States.


...In regard to the Arctic, the only Arctic states that are not already nuclear-free are the United States and Russia. ...  These two super powers   are expanding both their military, commercial and exploratory activity as global warming relentlessly frees up large areas that were previously frozen and made access difficult or impossible.


...And those strategic issues include the greater military presence in the Arctic, including a nuclear armed presence on submarines, aircraft and bases, as countries position themselves to take advantage of newly accessible mineral resources and a new sea route at the top of the world.


Fortunately we do no have to start from zero to try and make the call of the 2007 Canadian Pugwash group for an Arctic NWFZ a reality.


...&ldquo;The current Arctic environmental protection regime is based around a collection of customary international law, fragmented multilateral and bilateral legal instruments dealing with some arctic issues, and global international instruments that have an impact in the arctic. 

...We need to work closely with all the ecological activists , as so many of us do, who are highlighting the fragility of the Arctic, the disaster that is global warming and the need to give the Arctic the type of protection that Antarctica already has. 


The declaration that comes from this Conference needs to be a mobilising document that goes out by every conceivable means so that the twitter becomes a clarion call for action. 


Our parliaments across the world, our mass organisations, our scientists and youth leaders and the organisations of indigenous people can take up this demand to add the Arctic, which is the heritage for all humanity and pivotal to the survival of life on the planet, to the existing and growing zones which are free of that blight on humanity &ndash; nuclear weapons.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Electricity poverty crisis</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-08-05T12:00:39+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/001a5f2f48528dd61e5ccd1ccef64851-55.html#unique-entry-id-55</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/001a5f2f48528dd61e5ccd1ccef64851-55.html#unique-entry-id-55</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Electricity poverty crisis


There is a crisis of electricity poverty underway in New Zealand this winter, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.


His electorate office has been inundated with record numbers of people who can&rsquo;t afford their winter power bills.


Examples include:


	◦	A solo mother with an eleven month old baby got a power bill for $369 for a four-week period.   She has a wood burner but can&rsquo;t afford wood.   She has a medical certificate from her GP about the respiratory condition of her baby.   She lives in a Housing New Zealand home, but can&rsquo;t get a heat pump or carpet to help keep the house warm.   How is she supposed to pay that bill?


	◦	


	◦	A young couple in another Housing NZ home have one source of power &ndash; a wall heater.   They got a power bill for $400 for four weeks.   These are working people on a very low income, already struggling to pay their rent.   There is paint peeling off the walls because of mould.   They are on the waiting list for a heat pump, but won&rsquo;t be getting it before the winter is over.


	◦	


	◦	A young solo mother with four children came to my office with a power account of $400 for four weeks.   They are in a Housing New Zealand home with a log burner, and on the urgent waiting list for a heat pump.


	◦	


	◦	I had a superannuitant who came to see me, living in his own home, alone.   He got a power bill for $205.   If you are living on a fixed income and you get a power bill of $205 for four weeks, what are you supposed to do?


	◦	


&ldquo;I urge the government not to victimise these people or bash them in public for asking for help.


&ldquo;What is a solo mum with four kids meant to do with a power bill of $400 for four weeks?   All four children have recurrent upper and lower respiratory tract infections.   That is what happens when you have electricity poverty.   Health problems that cost much more than the power bill.


&ldquo;I understand that Housing New Zealand is not even allowing energy community action to enter homes to undertake a report on insulation and heating options.


&ldquo;There is no other expense that is similar to electricity bills - a seasonal spike that is an unavoidable expense, unpredictable and sometimes quite extreme in the context of a family budget;


&ldquo;There are alternatives.   The state of Victoria, for example, provides low-income households with more than $1 billion a year in concessions for essential services.   It pays a rebate to some households that reduces the cost of LPG heating gas.


&nbsp;    &ldquo;In the United Kingdom, the government provides a winter fuel payment of NZ$750 for pensioners over 60, and it pays NZ$1200 for the over-80s.


&nbsp;    &ldquo;I believe we need some urgent intervention to help New Zealand homes.   Energy prices have been rising steadily for around fifteen years.   That has now combined with a very cold couple of months.


&ldquo;The result is electricity poverty and real hardship for thousands of New Zealanders,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Progressives to co-operate with Labour in coalition</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2008-11-19T15:50:52+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/2590aad84d554ec69ea8fa8b6ef52275-54.html#unique-entry-id-54</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/2590aad84d554ec69ea8fa8b6ef52275-54.html#unique-entry-id-54</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[A close relationship with Labour in government will be every bit as close in Opposition, Progressive Party leader and Wigram MP leader Jim Anderton says.   The Progressives will formally cooperate with Labour in Opposition.


Jim Anderton, who was agriculture minister, will be the Opposition coalition agriculture spokesperson on behalf of both parties.


"Before the election, we said we would only enter government in partnership with Labour.   We couldn&rsquo;t support National because we won&rsquo;t work with parties that are likely to increase poverty, that try to sell publicly-owned strategic assets, that increase unemployment, or that fail to take care of our most vulnerable citizens.


"Progressives share with Labour a joint determination to ensure that National govern for no more than a single term, to stop it before it can do lasting damage to New Zealand and to refresh New Zealand&rsquo;s interest in a progressive future.


"Our leadership group has met and we believe our long-term future is with our close partners in the Labour Party."


Jim Anderton said a priority for the Progresives beyond his coalition role would be to push better access to dental care.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Address in Reply debate</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Speeches</category><dc:date>2008-12-10T17:00:00+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/b548d6e5174f4ad6d4eee39bd5ceb8f2-53.html#unique-entry-id-53</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/b548d6e5174f4ad6d4eee39bd5ceb8f2-53.html#unique-entry-id-53</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Mr Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating the government on their achievement in winning the general election and the confidence and trust of many New Zealanders.


...And though I strongly oppose some of the plans they have made for New Zealand, as a loyal New Zealander the Government has my very best wishes for success in their stewardship of our economy and our country.


...They promised they could radically cut taxes on ordinary working families and increase spending on all our social services at the same time.


...They promised the government wouldn&rsquo;t overtax New Zealanders with fiscal surpluses, nor project deficits into the future; but it would instead berth the fiscal supertanker precisely on a low tax, high-spending button every single budget.


...The Prime Minister travelled to very disadvantaged streets and promised we would no longer have pockets of deprivation in our cities where some kids are left behind in poverty.


...He promised all our children would be able to read and write because the testing they introduce to the education system will make all the difference in the world.


...He promised us world class infrastructure, the fastest broadband in the world, and an end to disputes over water allocation, instant resource management decisions and new motorways where today there are only broken dirt tracks.


...And its very first act in government is to throw out democratic standards like select committee hearings on its proposals.


...Already in the short month since the election we have seen one example of a weak arrogant government in action: its reaction to the potential ACC budget.


...It has yet to understand that officials will come to them every month, perhaps every week, demanding more money for something they say faces a crisis.


...The prime minister has set a low bar for ministerial inquiries and we will be having a lot of them at this rate.


...Treasury won&rsquo;t report its current set of forecasts for Crown debt until after the government&rsquo;s new laws have been passed under urgency.


...This is what National always does in government - it takes from the future for its short term advantage today.


...Those cuts are more generous to the most affluent, rather than to the people who are most vulnerable in a global economic downturn.


...When you borrow from overseas to splurge on tax cuts for people who need them least - someone has to pay for it.


...At the very time when we most need to strengthen New Zealand for the future, the National government is doing the opposite.


...And the centre piece of that bill is the largest ever increase in tax on business in New Zealand.


...The very first thing it does is to say we have too much innovation in New Zealand.


...Of all the criticisms I have ever heard of the New Zealand economy, National&rsquo;s claim we have too much innovation, and too much research and development is the silliest.


...But from this day forward, National will always be the party of higher tax on business.


...Let me spell out some more visionary ideas for how New Zealand might prosper in the coming years and months, as the rainfall of global economic crisis both threatens us, and presents us with an unprecedented opportunity.


...First, they should increase, not reduce, New Zealanders&rsquo; ability to own more assets here and around the world.


...The best way to protect the vulnerable in these troubled economic times globally is to direct tax cuts most heavily to those who are most vulnerable - not to those who are most able to protect themselves.


...And as the government invests and looks to stimulate the economy through the global downturn, it could ensure that it invests in measures that make the most difference to those who need help the most.


...As we read in the news this morning of thousands of predicted job losses in the construction industry, there has seldom been a more opportune time to build more state houses, to employ those builders and construction workers and to make home ownership more affordable for New Zealand families.


...A visionary government would look at how it can improve the wellbeing of New Zealanders, instead of how it can get away with stripping as many services as possible.


...I recommend to the new government that it looks at ways to make dental care more affordable and accessible for New Zealanders.   I will be bringing some more ideas about how to do that into this parliament, as I promised I would do during the election campaign.


...And the evidence shows very strongly that the problem has got much worse since alcohol laws were relaxed and alcohol became much more widely available.


...If you want a common element in the crime spree in South Auckland this year, it&rsquo;s hard to go past the easy availability of alcohol.


...Well P is a problem, but ask any expert, ask any police officer - what causes the most social and human damage in New Zealand, day in and day out - and the answer is alcohol abuse.


...So I will be bringing proposals to this House to make alcohol less available and I challenge the government to act on them. 

...And finally I want to say that if there is one area where we have much more to do, it is poverty, both here in New Zealand and globally.


...But I listened hard for how they are going to do it, and the cupboard of ideas is as bare as the food cupboards of some of our most impoverished homes.


...I have watched around the world with fascination at the speed with which governments have been able to act to bail out huge companies and banks when they have been in desperate need.


...And it leaves a question for all of us in this parliament - if we can do that for big companies and big banks in times of crisis, why can&rsquo;t we do it for people in crisis?


...Why can&rsquo;t we do it for the hundreds of millions of people who don&rsquo;t have enough to eat, who don&rsquo;t have clean water, who can&rsquo;t hope for basic medicine? 

...New Zealand should be a voice for them internationally, and a voice for the compelling new ideas that are emerging internationally to solve these global problems.


...At a time when global crisis threatens to deepen global poverty and darken even further the skies over the lives of the world&rsquo;s least privileged, we should be saying that if the world can offer crisis help to the strong, then we must also offer emergency bailout for the weakest and poorest.


...I call on our government to work constructively across party lines to see how New Zealand can use our almost unique position in the world as an efficient food producer to make a difference.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Nothing for agriculture&#x2c; bag of peanuts to replace National&#x2019;s largest ever increase in business tax.</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-02-01T15:46:34+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/5f50f159248e2b436a2b37cea7a02b5d-52.html#unique-entry-id-52</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/5f50f159248e2b436a2b37cea7a02b5d-52.html#unique-entry-id-52</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Business tax measures announced today are worth only a fraction of the increase in business tax the National Government introduced before Christmas, Progressive leader Jim Anderton says.


And the changes, worth just $10.50 a week to a small business, again ignore agriculture when New Zealand&rsquo;s main source of overseas income faces testing times.


&ldquo;The first thing National did in office was to introduce the largest increase in tax paid by business in New Zealand&rsquo;s history.   It introduced a new tax on innovation, at a cost to our most promising industries of over a billion dollars in just three years.   The peanut-sized tax policies announced today are worth less than half that.


&ldquo;Across 220,000 small businesses, $480 million over four years is worth only $10.50 a week.   That&rsquo;s a big bag of peanuts.


&ldquo;It is a quarter of the two billion dollars that would have been invested in our primary industries through the New Zealand Fast Forward fund if National had not jeopardised our economic future by axing it.


&ldquo;There is nothing for agriculture in this package.   Agriculture earns two thirds of New Zealand&rsquo;s income overseas, and if we are going to weather the global economic crisis we need to strengthen our agricultural sector.   The National Government didn&rsquo;t mention agriculture in the Speech From the Throne and didn&rsquo;t get a mention from the Prime Minister today.   This is a government made up of money market dealers, not people who understand productive businesses that power the real economy.


&ldquo;If John Key hadn&rsquo;t spent his first months in office on holiday, he would have had the strength to reverse his failed tax on innovation.   The measures announced today are useful, but nowhere near enough to deliver the strength and innovation our economy needs.&rdquo;]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>July Edition of Jim&#x27;s E-News</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Newsletters</category><dc:date>2009-07-28T12:00:00+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/7078ac2738d77e302e519fbceeeab296-51.html#unique-entry-id-51</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/7078ac2738d77e302e519fbceeeab296-51.html#unique-entry-id-51</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[As I suspected, the National Party has no plan and no meaningful ideas for creating a more job rich economy. 

...When you think about it - National was elected on a lot of promises it hasn&rsquo;t been able to keep:


...	&bull;	They told New Zealanders the previous government gave too much of the Foreshore and Seabed to Maori; Now they say we should have handed it all over.


	&bull;	They claimed they would significantly reduce violent crime; They haven&rsquo;t, and they have voted down any effort to reduce the availability of the one factor that is present in over sixty percent of all offences: Alcohol.


...Sooner or later, though, National will have to answer why they haven&rsquo;t been able to come up with any meaningful ideas to solve the problems New Zealand faces.


...Recently I wrote to Progressive Party members to say the Progressive Party executive had decided to work closely with Labour as a coalition partner in Opposition.


Working with Labour is the best way we can keep a long term presence for Progressive ideas in the mainstream of New Zealand politics.


...This was a great success for the Opposition, and the first time since the last election that the Opposition has shown we can be more popular than the government.


Some members of the Progressive Party who have been working with Labour on campaigns have been invited to hold office in branches. 

...In recognition, it made a decision recognising that membership of the Progressive Party is not incompatible with membership of the Labour Party.


This recognition will allow Progressive members to work cooperatively for the election of Labour candidates, who have compatible ideas and goals and to seek selection for office, or support progressive members seeking selection.   It also allows those members of the Progressive Party who don&rsquo;t want to join with Labour the choice to simply remain members of the Progressives.


...The Labour Party, the Progressives and the Greens have announced they are holding the equivalent of a parliamentary select inquiry into bank profits.


...I am supporting the cross-party inquiry because the banks have questions to answer about why there is a difference in the rates they charge.


Overseas-owned banks took $11.7 billion out of New Zealand last year in interest and profits. 

...At farm lending rates of 13-14 per cent that means our farmers have to pay $5.5-6 billion a year in interest alone to the Australian banks.


...Contact between Federated Farmers and banks over high interest rates for farm lending is welcome, and farmers should bring their concerns to the multi-party inquiry.


Federated farmers says its economists calculate that floating rates account for about $6.6 billion of the $45 billion of rural debt and &ldquo;floating&rdquo; mortgage rates are higher than they could be.


Three parliamentary parties, Labour, Greens and the Progressives are holding an inquiry on the topic and I want banks to front up and answer farmers&rsquo; concerns.


Banks need to explain why their interest rates haven&rsquo;t come down as fast as the Reserve Bank has been bringing down the official cash rate that banks pay the Reserve Bank for their deposits. 

...Farmers are the backbone of the economy, and the pressure high interest rates are causing farmers is pressure on New Zealand&rsquo;s entire economic development.


...Massey University Centre for Banking Studies director, David Tripe, reflecting on the banking inquiry announced by Labour, the Progressives and the Greens, has said it should not be taken seriously and the banks are being treated as scapegoats. ...  Banks are big and anonymous; they appear to have lots of money, so why not blame them if something is wrong?&rdquo; 

...The &lsquo;Rural News&rsquo; has picked up on the proposal &ldquo;to cut 60 frontline biosecurity staff from already overstretched border security contingent &ndash; the axe is ultimately in (Minister David) Carter&rsquo;s hands&hellip; When in opposition the (National) party repeatedly harangued then Minister Jim Anderton for neglecting the biosecurity portfolio as successive costly incursions side-stepped New Zealand&rsquo;s beleaguered border defences.&rdquo;


...	&bull;	February 21 2007: National disputes Anderton&rsquo;s claims we have &ldquo;the best biosecurity system in the world&rdquo;, arguing instead that we are actually losing the battle against organisms entering New Zealand.


	&bull;	November 4, 2008: National claims if it were in Government it &ldquo;would introduce a range of measures to ensure pest incursions did not threaten New Zealand&rsquo;s competitive agricultural advantage. 

...When the facts showed Treasury&rsquo;s advice about privatising rail was hopelessly wrong, they made up a case that said it was great anyway! 

...In an ironic twist on Treasury&rsquo;s call for other government departments to contract out more work, the discredited rail report was produced under contract for Treasury.


...Warnings of a credit downgrade because of our current account deficit are a wake up call about the sums we are paying foreign banks in interest and profit to fund the deficit.


...As I have been saying for a long time, the external deficit is already costing New Zealand too much.  ...  We sent $11.7 billion in interest and profit to overseas-owned banks last year, more than the government collected in GST revenue. 

...Interest rates charged here by the Australian-owned banks are higher than the same banks charge in Australia. 

...We are sending that money to the overseas-owned banks because they are financing the current account deficit. 

...Unfortunately the government doesn&rsquo;t have any economic plans to reduce the current account deficit and it doesn&rsquo;t even recognise the levels of profits going to overseas-owned banks are a problem.


...The Chief Justice&rsquo;s comments are the latest of a flurry this year looking at the justice system: Pita Sharples wants to build special Maori prisons for Maori offenders.&nbsp;

...If you intervene early, you don&rsquo;t have as many victims, and you don&rsquo;t need to worry about locking people up or letting them out.


...Until it is fixed, crime rates will remain high, more prisons will be built in local neighbourhoods, we will pay higher taxes to build them, they will continue to be overcrowded and they will continue to fail.


...Unemployment in a region like Gisborne increased from 3.8% in 2006 to 7.8% in March this year and it will be inevitably higher now. 

...While John Key talks about the economic performance of agriculture, he has no idea about why our farms, businesses and homeowners are paying much higher interest rates than Australians, when the same banks are doing the lending. 

...There should be nothing in the transfer of the water business of councils that can&rsquo;t be dealt with through the official information statutes. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Minimum Wage Should Rise</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-02-03T14:07:56+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/abb68f839774f3f69f9c0528b6f4e999-50.html#unique-entry-id-50</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/abb68f839774f3f69f9c0528b6f4e999-50.html#unique-entry-id-50</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Progressive MP Jim Anderton is supporting calls for an increase in the minimum wage when the national government discusses the issue next Monday.


He says protecting the vulnerable is the highest priority for managing the global economic recession.


&ldquo;The government will need to be reassured that increasing the minimum wage won&rsquo;t cost jobs.   And experience of the last nine years shows just that.   Unemployment fell to record lows while the minimum wage was steadily increased by over 70% in nine years.


&ldquo;Increasing the buying power of the lowest income workers makes sense because they are more likely than anyone to spend their income, keeping the money in circulation and boosting the whole economy at a time when it is needed.


&ldquo;The employer groups calling for a cut in the minimum wage need to look at the Great Depression.   The accumulated effect of everyone cutting back was to drive the economy into a deeper hole.


&ldquo;The government is likely to make some changes to business tax, and depending on the design that could well be helpful.   But it would send the wrong message to cut the minimum wage in real terms at the same time,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Gangs and Organised Crime Bill</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Speeches</category><dc:date>2009-02-10T14:06:51+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/2da8d16bc53e0e8f0e4c26517a6531df-49.html#unique-entry-id-49</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/2da8d16bc53e0e8f0e4c26517a6531df-49.html#unique-entry-id-49</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Jim Anderton's speech to Parliament on the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill


...If I could sum up this Bill with one sentence, it would be that the government has wildly raised expectations about dealing to violent crime in New Zealand.


...The Opposition will support this Bill, but it is not the silver bullet National promised.&nbsp;


...It will not significantly reduce violent crime in New Zealand as National has promised.


...It will not make the huge dent in crime that National promised New Zealanders.   The previous government was already promoting this legislation and we would have passed something similar - but we would not pretend as National does that this is all you need to do.


...I have no trouble declaring that the major factors in crime should be on the wrong end of tough law.


...Gangs are a cause of crime, so we should be tough with them.


...There is one factor linked to crime that this government won&rsquo;t even talk about.


...There is one factor linked to sixty per cent of all people arrested.&nbsp;


...Can the government even say the word that is common to the majority of all crime in New Zealand?


...Both of those are serious threats and need to be dealt with.   And if you are serious about them, you should logically be much more serious about a much more common cause of crime.


...Sixty percent of everyone arrested is under the influence of alcohol at the time they commit the offence for which they are arrested.


...So, because this government won&rsquo;t even mention that alcohol is involved in most crime, it won&rsquo;t do anything about sixty percent of all offending.


...If you pass this Bill before you have dealt with the low hanging fruit, before you have dealt with the biggest factor in crime of all - then you are not serious about crime.   You are joking and your raised expectations will ultimately disappoint and be held up to ridicule.


...The National Government made a big issue out of crime in Opposition.


...I am not going to quickly forget their pledges to seriously reduce the rate of violent crime.


...They promised they would get elected and put an immediate end to the kind of violent crime that terrorised shop keepers in South Auckland.


...How much is linked to the low drinking age that lets teenagers buy as much alcohol as they want on nearly every corner?


...The Government promised to significantly reduce violent crime.


...Having raised expectations, this government is now accountable if it doesn&rsquo;t deliver.


...The government should not be culpable for violent crime. 

...The government promised the New Zealand public it could make a difference.


...&ldquo;National knows New Zealanders are sick of worrying about the surging levels of violent crime in this country.   We are not going to put up with it.&nbsp;   So National will launch a full-frontal attack on gangs and the "P" trade they support.&rdquo;


...Ok, so they are passing the law they said they would. ...  The acid is on John Key: This is National&rsquo;s full frontal attack on gangs and the P trade, and if it doesn&rsquo;t deal effectively to the surging levels of crime National knows New Zealanders are sick of - then National is accountable.


...He said it on stages, and he said it in tv debates - he said the major problem is gangs, because gangs make P, and P is the major cause of crime.   So he said, when this government took office, it would pass this Bill, and violent crime would be significantly reduced.


...I hope this Bill really does make a huge difference, and that is why I&rsquo;m voting for it, and it&rsquo;s why the Opposition is voting for it.


...But actually, I am not naive enough to make the promise Mr Key made, and National candidates made up and down the country - that they would significantly reduce crime.


...Here is what Mr Key said in his speech on 29 January last year:


...Young criminals are graduating from petty crime to more serious crime; unexploded time-bombs on a fast-track to Paremoremo.&rdquo;


...So is this Bill going to make a major difference to that?


...Can I ask the government members here in the chamber - will violent crime be significantly reduced as of the date of the passing of this Bill?


...Or do they still want to tell New Zealanders they will significantly reduce violent crime as they promised. 

...But every violent crime from now on shows the failure of the key promise of this government - that they could stamp out violent crime by targetting gangs -- raised expectations far beyond what they can deliver and thus failed the communities they have promised to protect.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Comment on agriculture - February 2009</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Columns</category><dc:date>2009-02-12T14:05:25+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/e1eea001526a16800ff84ca3bc23264b-48.html#unique-entry-id-48</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/e1eea001526a16800ff84ca3bc23264b-48.html#unique-entry-id-48</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[One of the first effects has been to reduce the value of our dollar.   Eventually that will increase New Zealand dollar incomes, but in the short term it pushes up the cost of fuel.   Imports of capital equipment cost more.   The lower dollar provides some relief &ndash; especially in some of our most squeezed industries &ndash; but over the long haul a lower currency is no basis to build genuine long term prosperity.


At the same time that the dollar has been falling, commodity prices have also fallen.   Consumers everywhere are closing their wallets.   Businesses are reducing inventory and holding back from introducing new product lines.   So the prices we can achieve for some of our staple exports are falling.   I&rsquo;m confident about our primary exports in the long haul, but in the near future, times will still be tough.


Panicked politicians and activists in some areas are becoming more protectionist.   Even the celebrity cook, Jamie Oliver, is calling on British consumers to boycott meat that isn&rsquo;t &ldquo;local&rdquo;.


For producers like farmers and other agri-businesses, credit is tightening.   Though interest rates are coming down, banks and other lenders are much more conservative.   (Some of them needed to be.)   I&rsquo;ve read of businesses finding it hard to get letters of credit.   Who is interested in letters of credit from banks that might be gone by the time products are landed on foreign wharves?   So producers are faced with the grim risk of putting their goods on ships with no guarantee they will be paid.


We can&rsquo;t change the world economy but we can support our own businesses to position themselves during this downturn and to emerge even stronger when world economic growth turns up again.   For example, more government investment in research and development at this time would ensure we don&rsquo;t lose ground when farmers themselves are under pressure over costs.   The two billion dollar New Zealand Fast Forward fund to invest in the future of our primary industries would have helped strengthen the economy.   But the National government has made a priority out of scrapping it.


When the National Government unveiled a business tax package recently, I looked closely to see what would be there for our farmers and to invest in the future.   Unfortunately, against a backdrop of global cataclysm, there wasn&rsquo;t much.   For example, there was a small rule change to make Disputes Tribunal claims easier, but I wonder how many farms that is going to make a difference to.


The $120 million a year of new spending in the package gives back less than a third of the increased tax on innovation that the National Government introduced under urgency just before Christmas, when they cancelled the Labour-Progressive government&rsquo;s tax rebate for spending on research and development.


Words like &lsquo;farm&rsquo;, agriculture&rsquo; or even &lsquo;exports&rsquo; weren&rsquo;t mentioned in the business tax package.   Our primary industries make up two thirds of our export earnings, and they didn&rsquo;t get anything in the business tax package.   When John Key wrote the Speech from the Throne, agriculture didn&rsquo;t get a mention then, either.   I wonder if the money market dealers running the National Government even realise that farms are businesses.


If we are going to weather the global economic crisis we need to strengthen our agricultural sector.


Small policies that tinker round the edge won&rsquo;t do it.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>National asked to support vulnerable Christchurch tenants</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-02-16T13:40:40+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/543ea82083a8700a440f650760349fdb-47.html#unique-entry-id-47</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/543ea82083a8700a440f650760349fdb-47.html#unique-entry-id-47</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[There could be help for Christchurch tenants fighting Council-imposed rent increases if National picks up a proposal for government assistance that was prepared for the previous Labour-Progressive Government, Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.&nbsp;


Tenants have successfully opposed the rent increase in court, but the Christchurch city&rsquo;s incumbent right-wing majority has now signalled it could again try to substantially increase rents or even abandon social housing altogether - leaving two and a half thousand vulnerable tenants with nowhere to live unless central government steps in.


&nbsp;


Jim Anderton says the government should step in to help because it would have to pick up some of the costs of a rent increase anyway, including through increased Accommodation Supplement payments.


&nbsp;


He today released a business case he sent to the previous finance minister Michael Cullen on behalf of Labour and Progressive Christchurch MPs after a thorough review of the Council&rsquo;s plan to raise rents to help pay for refurbishment of the Council&rsquo;s social housing.


&nbsp;


The business case was sent by Jim Anderton and Labour MPs Ruth Dyson, Lianne Dalziel, Clayton Cosgrove and Tim Barnett.   It sought a net government investment of $29 million over ten years.   It would have reduced the rent increase from 24 per cent to ten per cent and allowed for the replacement of over three hundred homes and a continuous refurbishment programme.


&nbsp;


He also released Treasury advice on the report that says it should be considered as part of Budget 2009.   The Treasury response says there is no evidence that the Christchurch City Council ever approached the government itself to ask for the necessary funds.


&nbsp;


Jim Anderton says the Council&rsquo;s behaviour has created a huge problem, and it&rsquo;s now up to the National government to help tenants out.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;Council never approached the government before it announced the rent increase.   Its threats to abandon social housing are very worrying for some of the city&rsquo;s most vulnerable residents.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;The net cost to the government of stepping in to help is not unreasonable if it is looked at in the context of a twenty year programme of investment to help very vulnerable people.   Over that period, the net cost to the government of $29 million averages around $1.5 million per year.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;The National government has indicated it wants to shoulder some of the costs to local body ratepayers of providing social services, and it has also indicated a willingness to see housing expanded as a response to the global financial crisis.   One obvious solution is to assist the council directly to make this investment.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;I hope Gerry Brownlee, as the senior Christchurch government MP, will take over the role of advocating within his government for vulnerable Christchurch city tenants, and I have sent the file on the work done so far to him,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Sentencing Bill won&#x2019;t reduce crime.</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><category>Backgrounder</category><dc:date>2009-02-18T13:38:05+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/ab652eb3a3622ca8e2ffe71a35eba3fe-46.html#unique-entry-id-46</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/ab652eb3a3622ca8e2ffe71a35eba3fe-46.html#unique-entry-id-46</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The promise to significantly reduce violent crime won&rsquo;t be kept, because the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill introduced to parliament today won&rsquo;t make the difference promised, Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.


...He told Parliament the Government would be accountable if there were more violent killings after Government Ministers announced &lsquo;Under this Bill there will be no more William Bells.&rsquo;


...&ldquo;Ministers responsible for this Bill know it will not deliver the results they have promised,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said.


...The Bill&rsquo;s Explanatory Note says any impact on prison numbers from this Bill &ldquo;will not be felt for at least 10 years.&rdquo;&nbsp;  When the government announced it was getting tough with criminals it didn&rsquo;t say that &lsquo;getting tough&rsquo; meant doing nothing for ten years and a total of 70 extra prison beds after twenty years.


...A recent survey showed only 43% of New Zealanders feel completely satisfied about their security and safety in their own home. ...  That&rsquo;s why when my colleague Matt Robson was corrections minister he started building more prisons than any corrections minister in history.   So I support putting violent offenders away and my party helped put the prisons in place to do it.


...It doesn&rsquo;t lock anyone up until they have already committed a serious violent offence. 

...&ldquo;If you want to reduce crime, the solutions are much more complex.   It starts with reducing at risk behaviour, it continues to getting tough with young hoons on their way to a life of crime.   And it includes addressing the major risk factors in prisons, like alcohol and illiteracy - because when over 90 per cent of criminals have an alcohol or drug problem, then you aren&rsquo;t going to rehabilitate them and turn them away from a life of crime unless you fix those.


...&ldquo;We owe it to New Zealanders to get tough on crime.&nbsp; ...  This Bill will not deliver National&rsquo;s promise to significantly reduce crime.&rdquo;


...The point is that the likelihood of going to prison doesn't seem to affect whether or not offenders go out and commit crimes.   So if we want to reduce crime, then there must be something else we can do to keep the public safe.


...Young people who are at risk of becoming serious adult offenders are recognisable with increasing certainty as newborns, as school entrants, as young offenders and as early adult offenders.


...Each of the main risk factors increases the probability of anti-social behaviour by four to ten times. 

...We can do that by working with young women who fit the profile and who are in the social welfare and justice systems.


...Teaching young women about the advantages of delaying child bearing until they are settled, mature and suitable support is available.   The cost for each intervention is as little as about $500.   The benefit to cost ratio has been assessed as fifty to one.


...We need to back that up with more support for high-risk new mothers.


...The benefit to cost ratio is assessed at twenty-five to one.


...And then we can move to children as they enter school.


Teachers have long been able to identify many of the school entrants that they believe will end up as adult offenders.   For example an intervention for a five year old who is aggressive and defiant is estimated to cost about $5000-$10,000 per case with a success rate of 70%.   The same behaviour at the age of 25 years costs $30-40,000 and has a success rate of only 20%.


...Children who are at risk of progressing to serious adult offending get easier to identify between the ages of ten and fifteen.


...The single most powerful indicator of a trajectory to serious adult offending is early repeat offending as a child.


...The obvious risk factors include failure at school, substance abuse, deviant friends and a family that has problems - poor supervision, criminal parents and child abuse.


...Working with these kids to prevent them moving on to serious adult offending would mean intervention with about two thousand kids a year, at a cost of about $7-15,000 each.


...If one in four of them moves on to a lifetime of offending without the intervention, and one in three interventions actually work, then the benefit-cost ratio is about 36-1.&nbsp;


...More than half of the teenagers who enter the adult justice system are re-convicted within one year of ending their sentence. 

...Dangerous teenage offenders who commit violent and sexual offences would still go to prison. 

...Attendance at Day Reporting Centres would be compulsory five days a week for six months, and might be accompanied by night curfews and electronic monitoring.   The units cost about $10-20,000 per offender to run, with a benefit to cost return of 37-1.


...Corrections Department research indicates the measures in this package could eventually reduce imprisonable offending by around 17% a year.


...The earlier you intervene, the more effective the result, but the harder it is to work out where the intervention is needed. ...  They will take enormous co-ordination across a number of government agencies - Corrections, health, CYFS, education and others.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Sentencing and Parole Bill</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Speeches</category><dc:date>2009-02-18T13:29:36+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/2ada29c1be7dcc32f165848ad2c2dd75-45.html#unique-entry-id-45</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/2ada29c1be7dcc32f165848ad2c2dd75-45.html#unique-entry-id-45</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[I have always believed that one of the most important things we can do in this House is to bear witness to the truth - to stand up and tell the truth about what we know to be true, despite the consequences.


...What I know about this Bill, is that it is bound to play well as a popular measure, but that it is a fraud.


It will not deliver on the promises that have been made for it.


...I believe the ministers responsible for this Bill know it will not deliver the results they have promised.


...I believe they are pushing it through knowing it will not end violent crime, as they promised; knowing it will not make a significant difference as they promised.


...The government has promised this Bill will ensure "there will be no more Williams Bells.&rdquo;


...Here is word for word what he said: &ldquo;Under this Bill there will be no more William Bells.&rdquo;


...The promise the minister made in his press release will come back to haunt him and he will regret it.


...The Bill says any impact on prison numbers from this Bill &ldquo;will not be felt for at least 10 years.&rdquo; ...  I didn&rsquo;t read in the minister&rsquo;s statement that ten years after this Bill is passed, not one single extra person will be locked up.


...I read that they were going to &ldquo;get tough&rdquo; with violent criminals. 

...He didn&rsquo;t say that getting tough meant waiting ten years before one single person was locked up.


...I did read John Key saying &ldquo;New Zealanders are sick of waiting for promises on law and order to be delivered."&nbsp;


...I read John Key saying the last government took nine years to deliver - so he&rsquo;s going one better and waiting ten!


...So let&rsquo;s add that up - the government says this Bill will end violent crime.


...And it says it will end violent crime by locking up a total of seventy people between ten and twenty years from now. 

...That&rsquo;s what National thinks is the extent of the violent crime problem in this country - seven violent crimes a year. 

...I remember in 1990 National got elected by saying it was going to end violent crime back then, too.


...I remember John Banks saying he was going to get tough and put an end to murder and violence and pillage.


...It turned out then that violent crime is a lot more complex than the cheap headlines National wants to get.


...I saw research this week that showed only 43% of New Zealanders feel completely satisfied about their own security and safety in their own home.


...You don&rsquo;t get locked up until the violent crime has already been committed.


...This government is soft on crime because it won&rsquo;t do anything to stop the crimes being committed in the first place.


...The members opposite say they will reduce crime by locking up the most serious violent offenders.


...But you don&rsquo;t lock them up until they have already committed a serious violent offence.


...So I support putting violent offenders away and my party helped to put the prisons in place to do it.


...If the object of a Bill is to denounce crime, then say that - don&rsquo;t come in here pretending that the Bill is going to reduce violent crime.   This Bill isn&rsquo;t, you know it isn&rsquo;t, and that makes the very basis of this Bill a fraud, and it insults this House.


...If I&rsquo;m generous I would say the object of this Bill might be to punish offenders more.


...But I do not believe the object of this Bill is to reduce offending.


...It starts with reducing at risk behaviour, it continues to getting tough with young hoons on their way to a life of crime. 

...Because when over 90 per cent of criminals have an alcohol or drug problem, then you aren&rsquo;t going to rehabilitate them and turn them away from a life of crime unless you fix those.


...And for all of those proven and efficient policies, the best estimate of the difference it would make was this - in the long run, it would reduce crime by about 17 per cent. 

...It is a long way short of what the government has promised for this Bill.   They promised an end to violent crime - and now they are accountable.


...Now they are accountable for their promise to make a significant reduction in violent crime.


...They are accountable for their promise their will be no more William Bells. 

...So if it won&rsquo;t make much difference to crime, what difference will this Bill make?


...What are the chances she will be much less likely to report a man when she knows it would mean that he would be locked up for life.


...Those are decisions victims make all the time - and the truth is this Bill will ensure some women in exactly that position suffer grievously because of the horrifying dilemmas it will create. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Why is National guaranteeing FAI Finance?</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><category>Backgrounder</category><dc:date>2009-02-25T13:28:13+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/074ea41ba830bd3ebd6f3b73507151c7-44.html#unique-entry-id-44</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/074ea41ba830bd3ebd6f3b73507151c7-44.html#unique-entry-id-44</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[A taxpayer guarantee for a finance company owned by Hanover has Wigram&rsquo;s Progressive MP Jim Anderton puzzled.   The government has given a Crown guarantee to FAI Finance - wholly owned by Hanover and, through a network of companies, by Mark Hotchin and Eric Watson.


&ldquo;The absolutely top policy guidelines specified by Treasury for considering a Crown guarantee are &lsquo;the maintenance of public confidence in New Zealand&rsquo;s financial system; and maintaining the confidence of general public depositors in New Zealand financial institutions.&rsquo;   It is not clear how a guarantee for Hanover companies fits that guideline,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said.


The Treasury says factors that should be taken into account in giving a guarantee include&nbsp; the size of the entity and related party exposure, the business practice of the entity, the &lsquo;good character&rsquo; and business acumen of the entity and &ldquo;The track record of the entity.&rdquo;


Last year Hanover froze over half a billion of investors money and investors approved a recovery plan in December.


In June last year, the latest date recorded in its prospectus issued this month, FAI had assets in loans worth a total of $28,582,000, at an average interest rate of 21.63%.   This sum included $15,119,000 due in 2-5 years.   Investors had $18,542,000 in FAI at an average interest rate of 9.9%.   Among those entitled to their money back, $6,468,000 was on call, $7,514,000 due in 6-12 months, and $382,000 due in more than two years.


The Crown receives a fee for the guarantee, which could be worth as little as $28,000 a year.


Jim Anderton said a Crown guarantee to Hanover is a strange response to the financial crisis.&nbsp;


&ldquo;The point of the guarantee is to prevent the entire deposit base of New Zealand fleeing.   But there is still room for non-guaranteed businesses that should be able to charge an interest rate reflecting their risk.   Hanover is the sort of company that the market can make its own decisions about.


&ldquo;Mr Hotchin and Mr Watson appear to be affluent men and it is hard to see why they shouldn&rsquo;t give the guarantee from their own resources instead of those of the Crown.&rdquo;


...Shares: 15,766,588 - all held by&nbsp;Hanover Finance


...	1	37,835,596 held by Hanover Financial Services


	1	33,815,000 held by Hanover Capital


...Directors: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Mark Hotchin


...Shares: 5,000,000 all owned by Hanover Financial Services


...Directors: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Mark Hotchin


...Shares: 13,303,620 all owned by Hanover Group.


...Shares: 207,327,000 all owned by Hanover Group Holdings


...	1	77,279,174 owned by Hotchin Investments.


	2	10,591,883 owned by Forefront Investments.


...Directors: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Mark Hotchin


...Shares: 39,500,000 all owned by Hotchin Trustee Ltd


...Shares: 1000, all owned by the directors (= trustees).


...	1	5000 owned by Eric Watson


	2	591,933 owned by Peak NZ


...Shares: 100, all owned by Foreshore Investments


...Shares: 100, all owned by Cire Trust


...Shares: 100, all owned by Eric Watson.


...FAI Prospectus 7, registered 9 February 2009.


...At 20 June 2008, FAI had assets in loans worth a total of $28,582,000, at an average interest rate of 21.63%.&nbsp;


...This sum included $15,119,000 due in 2-5 years.


...At the same date it had deposit liabilities (i.e.   Money that investors have invested in FAI securities) 0f $18,542,000, at an average interest rate of 9.9%.


...This included 6,468,000 on call, $7,514,000 due in 6-12 months, and $382,000 due in more than two years.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Piggies raid bank</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-02-25T13:26:32+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/c6764ca667c57690441f4081e79ed08b-43.html#unique-entry-id-43</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/c6764ca667c57690441f4081e79ed08b-43.html#unique-entry-id-43</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[John Key&rsquo;s failure to give an assurance about the Superannuation Fund means he cannot honour his pre-election promise not to change superannuation, Wigram&rsquo;s Progressive MP Jim Anderton says.


&ldquo;Raiding the piggy bank today means there is less in the piggy bank when it is needed.&nbsp;


&ldquo;If the Super Fund is reduced in any way, then our future ability to pay for superannuation at existing levels is reduced.   If it is cut then significantly higher taxes in future than we would otherwise have are inevitable, or alternatively reduced levels of superannuation in the future will be the certain result.


&ldquo;There is no easy option.   National makes pledges about super today, but that is meaningless because they are setting up super to be cut in the future.   Future superannuation will not be paid for out of thin air.   Whatever is taken out of the Fund today by way of &lsquo;freezes&rsquo; or &lsquo;reduced contributions&rsquo; is money not available to pay for super in the future.


&ldquo;Cut the fund today, and the payout will be cut in future.


&ldquo;National was repeatedly challenged to come clean on this before the election and it repeatedly gave an undertaking that superannuation would be unchanged.


"I specifically warned that National would use &lsquo;changed circumstances&rsquo; as an excuse - but circumstances always change.   Once again, just like it did last time in government, National is breaking its promise and finding a creative new way to break its promise not to cut super.&rdquo;]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Kiwibank continues to prove itself a winner</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-02-26T13:25:33+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/900496b4896a4330603f5eaacf887b4e-42.html#unique-entry-id-42</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/900496b4896a4330603f5eaacf887b4e-42.html#unique-entry-id-42</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Ownership of Kiwibank is paying off in a big way, both for the people of New Zealand and for the government as its shareholder, Wigram&rsquo;s Progressive MP Jim Anderton says.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;Combining its profit and its tax paid, Kiwibank is generating almost enough income for the government in one year to equal the $80 million it cost to set up.&rdquo;


&nbsp;


Kiwibank today declared an after-tax profit of $25.8 million for the last six months of last year.   It also paid tax of $12 million.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;Kiwibank&rsquo;s deposits are soaring because New Zealanders can see it offers a better deal than they would have if we didn&rsquo;t have our own bank.   Kiwibank has an AA- credit rating.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;And Kiwibank&rsquo;s lending is soaring too, because it can offer lower interest rates.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;It&rsquo;s great that we have our own bank performing so well at a time of international financial crisis.   We don&rsquo;t have to be dependent on overseas financial markets.   Those markets right now look like the dog that critics claimed that Kiwibank would be.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;Kiwibank is, after only six years of operating, worth more than NZ Post.   Its profitability is steadily rising.   Kiwibank is continuing to prove itself a winner.&rdquo;]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Comment on agriculture</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Columns</category><dc:date>2009-03-04T13:24:03+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/93786e1cc1f89d9076cd17cbb4f3c909-41.html#unique-entry-id-41</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/93786e1cc1f89d9076cd17cbb4f3c909-41.html#unique-entry-id-41</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Response to Nelson-Marlborough Farming magazine


New Zealand exports around twenty billion dollars a year worth of food products.   We import food products worth less than three billion dollars &ndash; a fraction of our exports.


That&rsquo;s why I was disappointed to read a call in the February Nelson-Marlborough Farming for measures that would be seen in other countries as a form of protectionism against food imports.   [&ldquo;Kiwis are gobbling foreign food,&rdquo; Page 6.]


We can argue to and fro all we like about whether mandatory country of origin labelling really is protectionism.   But what is indisputable is that other countries perceive mandatory labelling as a protectionist measure.


It&rsquo;s true some major markets require mandatory labelling - but we oppose them doing so.   They do it to keep our products out.   If we then impose mandatory country of origin labelling on them, we will have to drop our opposition to those countries doing it. 


That will hurt our exports.   It will hurt New Zealand farmers.


Our horticulture industry earns about $2.2 billion a year from exports - around half of its total turnover.   That is a lot to put at risk from mandatory labelling.


Nor is horticulture being increasingly hurt as we import more from overseas - our horticulture exports have grown ten fold - ten-fold! - in the last twenty years.


I agree with people who say we can achieve a premium price by labelling our products New Zealand made.   And there is absolutely nothing to stop that happening now.&nbsp;   But we might risk that potential premium if we introduced a meaningless label like the one across the Tasman: &ldquo;Made from Australian and imported products.&rdquo;   That is the labelling we would get if we brought in mandatory country of origin labelling for food.


I don&rsquo;t share the aims of people who say we should be self-sufficient in our own food.   We are good at growing dairy, meat and a huge range of horticultural products.   We are not so good at growing rice and bananas.   I cannot see the sense in shifting some of our farms from dairy to rice paddies.   It makes much more sense to sell as much dairy as we can to the world and buy the rice we need with the proceeds - along with cars, fuel, computers and many other products that our food exports help us to buy.


Nor do I agree with those who say this policy amounts to the policy of the &lsquo;hard capitalistic right,&rsquo; as I was accused of. 


Agricultural protectionism punishes poor countries more than it punishes rich ones.   If there is one thing I am against, it is poverty, and I support policies that reduce poverty.   Opening up global agriculture will hugely benefit some of the world&rsquo;s poorest people.


It so happens that promoting more trade in agriculture not only reduces poverty, it helps create a lot more jobs, higher incomes and more successful businesses here in New Zealand, too.   I&rsquo;m in favour of that as well.


A recent report showed trade barriers cost the average food grower in New Zealand $25,000 a year in income.   Non-tariff trade barriers might cost even more.   Once we start advocating for them here, we would be advocating for even greater penalties on our industry.


Market access is hard gained and easily lost.   Our focus should be on growing ways to get our products into more countries - not on ways to keep other country&rsquo;s products out.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>McCully to return to pork barrel NZAid</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-03-04T13:22:36+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/df2e355ceddd3df53c3e6f19cc60091b-40.html#unique-entry-id-40</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/df2e355ceddd3df53c3e6f19cc60091b-40.html#unique-entry-id-40</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Deputy leader of the Progressive Party Matt Robson and the Minister in 2002 who with Phil Goff set up NZAID slammed Foreign Minister McCully&rsquo; s proposal for aid to be part of "NZInc" and for NZAID to be "folded back into MFAT".


"He should just set up a Department of Bribes and be done with it said Matt Robson.


"Being part of MFAT was exactly the problem with NZ development aid before we separated it out into a specialist division."


"It was staffed by junior diplomats on their way up or older diplomats on their way out.   There was no specialist department.   The programmes were in a muddle.   We gave aid to two super military powers- China and India.   Why?   To peddle influence in their capitals not to help the poorest people.   It is to that obscene policy that McCully is obviously attracted.


"Phil Goff as Foreign Minister and I as the Minister responsible for Aid deliberately separated out development aid from Foreign Affairs as it was largely being used as a fund used for New Zealand&rsquo;s foreign policy aims not to help the development, in a systematic way, of the world&rsquo;s poorest policy.


"Under National aid money was used by Foreign Affairs to win the support and votes of tyrants like Suharto of Indonesia and the King of Tonga.   It was used to give retirement jobs like the head of the Commonwealth to ex National MPs like Don McKinnon.


"NZ Aid was a progressive step for NZ ," concluded Matt Robson.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Nats&#x2019; ACC cuts hit elderly&#x2c; poor and farmers</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-03-05T13:21:22+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/8d893c271a3bb8198ef9a6e584813b39-39.html#unique-entry-id-39</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/8d893c271a3bb8198ef9a6e584813b39-39.html#unique-entry-id-39</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[National&rsquo;s cuts to ACC and privatisation will mean vicious price hikes and service cuts for the elderly, beneficiaries and farmers, Wigram&rsquo;s progressive MP Jim Anderton says.


&nbsp;


He says new charges for some ACC services will mean low income people can&rsquo;t afford treatment.   Competing ACC providers will mean higher premiums for farmers.   And many working people will be left without cover when private providers fail.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;If National charges for some ACC treatment, some low income people won&rsquo;t be able to afford to pay.   That means working people on lower wages, and especially beneficiaries and superannuitants, won&rsquo;t be able to get treatment if they are hurt in an accident.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;National&rsquo;s plans mean no rehabilitation for your elderly mum if she falls over in a shop unless someone can cough up for the costs of treatment.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;It is disgusting for the government to save ACC costs by blocking physio and rehabilitation services for elderly New Zealanders.   How would a pensioner afford a $50 a week physio fee?   Most of them paid their premiums for much of their working lives and national is contemplating increasing their costs at the same time it is cutting tax for the most affluent New Zealanders.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;National&rsquo;s plans to bring in competition and privatise ACC will put up prices.   A report from the previous National-Liberal Government in Australia, comparing accident compensation in Australia and New Zealand in 2004, showed levies in Australia&rsquo;s competitive market were twice as expensive as those in New Zealand for the primary sector.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;A competitive scheme could result in a levy hike of as much as 250 per cent for rural people like farmers.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;Our ACC administration cost is about a third of Australian schemes.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;In Victoria &ndash; where two companies competed so seriously they ran each other out of business &ndash; they competed by underfunding the tail.   In other words, in a competitive system, companies can go broke and leave liabilities for long term claims unpaid.&nbsp;   What happens to people needing long term care for their accidents when the provider goes broke?&rdquo;]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>It was all about privatising jails</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-03-09T13:19:32+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/b58997af3fb8c66ce1cae3e7dd29b621-38.html#unique-entry-id-38</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/b58997af3fb8c66ce1cae3e7dd29b621-38.html#unique-entry-id-38</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The big mouth behaviour of the Corrections Minister has been exposed by the State Services Commissioner&rsquo;s report on Barry Matthews, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;The report confirms mainly that Judith Collins is not equipped for a tough job.


&ldquo;And it exposes the campaign to vilify a government department was really a cynical campaign to privatise prison management.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;Ms Collins swaggered around leaving no one under any doubt that she would force the Corrections department CEO to step down.   For example, the Herald - citing Ms Collins&rsquo; &lsquo;ruthless combination of raw power and tactical guile&rsquo; - declared:


She has made Matthews&rsquo; position utterly untenable.   And she left the State Services Commission - as Matthews&rsquo; employer - no option but to remove him, assuming he does not resign beforehand.&nbsp;


&nbsp;


Jim Anderton says the pressure on Mr Matthews to go was always an overreaction to the Auditor&rsquo;s report.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;Among the specific, highlighted examples the Auditor cited were failures to fill out reports and inconsistency in classification of the illness of paroled offenders.   These procedural issues needed to be fixed, but it was unjustified and disproportionate to say they amounted to a case for immediate dismissal.   That was always going to be a wrong judgement - exactly what the State Services inquiry has found.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;Ms Collins should have known that there was no case to support the dismissal of the CEO of her department.   Either she didn&rsquo;t know and isn&rsquo;t up to the job, or she did know and was cynical in the way she used the issue.&rdquo;]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Speech Notes: Launch of Wool to Weta&#xa;</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Speeches</category><dc:date>2009-03-10T13:16:17+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/94a4f4c21041c9dcb478340cf784e2d5-37.html#unique-entry-id-37</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/94a4f4c21041c9dcb478340cf784e2d5-37.html#unique-entry-id-37</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[I would like to start out by congratulating Professor Callaghan on this book and on promoting the topic of economic development.


...He was responding to a reporter who asked him whether he would want to be called Sir Paul. 

...And though there are some in New Zealand who are clinging to the vestiges of our ancient british past, we are becoming a different a culture too.


...So I want to suggest to you, that just as the decision about whether to be Professor Callaghan or Sir Paul is a choice we have to make...we also have economic choices to make.


One such choice is whether we want to make more progress toward a more science-based economy, more use of ideas and a more modern way of celebrating success.


...His brother, Rod, was a political colleague of mine for many years, and he introduced us when Alan came back to New Zealand for a visit.


...He believed in the power of ideas, knowledge and research to improve the lives and wellbeing of New Zealanders.


...If you open this book and turn to the introduction, there are charts that put in stark perspective the performance of the New Zealand economy relative to other countries in our modern history:


...I find one thing very striking about these graphs: They are the same ones I have been using in speeches and presentations for a decade.


And the central point is the same - that we don&rsquo;t have enough businesses in New Zealand that are making very large returns per employee.


...We don&rsquo;t have enough high value, high skill, high return companies because we don&rsquo;t have enough science and innovation lifting the productivity of our economy.


Not enough of our economy is based on ideas and on research.


It&rsquo;s easy for us to fall into the trap of thinking that this means there is a problem with our existing industries.


...I have been to a business where they extract a medical supplement from milk and sell small vials of the extract for thousands of dollars each.


...Compare the value of that vial to the value of the same weight of dairy produce from New Zealand a few decades ago.


One of the lessons from this example is that our economy can change far more rapidly than we sometimes realise. 

...At the turn of the century, economists pointed out that the United States exported the same weight of goods in 2000 as it had exported in 1900.


...I&rsquo;ve asked Paul Callaghan why he thinks we aren&rsquo;t better at using science in our economy.   I&rsquo;ve put the same question to dozens of business people whom I have met around New Zealand.


...He said to me, &lsquo;you are lucky in New Zealand because you have so much creative talent. 

...Lord Rutherford said, &lsquo;in New Zealand, we don&rsquo;t have much&nbsp;money so we have to think.&rsquo;


...If we want more innovation and science in our industry then we need the leadership and co-ordination that will create it.


Everywhere you go around New Zealand and put the ideas in this book to businesspeople, and to scientists, they will agree with you.


...The vision of more innovation and a vision for the leadership to create more innovative companies is not universally shared.


...Uncomfortable as it is for many people - especially in business - Support for science has become a fault line between differing political philosophies.


There was a very public example of this divide between pro- and anti-science politics only this morning in the United States.


...At his press conference he repudiated the previous President&rsquo;s opposition to stem cell research in the US, saying the distinction between science and morality in this case was false.


...We have to harness science, harness research and harness ideas if we are going to improve our living standards and those of our children and future generations.


...In the last three months in this country, those choices have been made and they have been made against science.


...So, as I said at the outset, the forward progress of the New Zealand economy inevitably involves taking steps backwards as well as forwards.


...And it is up to those of us with a passion and commitment to the power of ideas, to advocate for our vision of a more dynamic and vibrant economy.


I will give you one example that inspires me, and that is relevant to the concerns we all share about the drain from New Zealand of our best and brightest.


It was at the launch of New Zealand Fast Forward here in Wellington about a year ago, when we invited some graduate students from Massey University.


One of the science postgrads who spoke that day was off to the UK to take up a scholarship, and he made an announcement that no one present knew he was going to make: he said the launch of that fund and its potential to finance brilliant, game-changing science in New Zealand had made him change his mind.


He said that when he finished his course in the UK he no longer believed his only chance for a science career would be overseas; He would come back to New Zealand to give it a go. 

...Our problem is that we haven&rsquo;t been able to offer enough of a choice back here.   We haven&rsquo;t been able to use enough of our connections to the world, and of the trails blazed by our best.


And we haven&rsquo;t brought enough of their innovation into the boardroom, and into the soul of innovative, large scale companies based here.


...It is crucial for us to have this conversation, and I congratulate Paul and the people he spoke to on playing their part in this conversation.


I wish you all the very best in continuing this conversation and in making a real difference to the transformation of New Zealand&rsquo;s industry.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Speeches</category><dc:date>2009-03-10T13:15:04+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/deef707ec3ce82a5940eab35c3636c1e-36.html#unique-entry-id-36</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/deef707ec3ce82a5940eab35c3636c1e-36.html#unique-entry-id-36</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[But I am under no illusions that it needs to go much further if we are to reduce seriously the harm caused by alcohol.


...Alcohol causes between one and a half and two and a half billion dollars worth of economic and social harm every year.


...It is by far the most damaging drug in this country.


...It is the most damaging not because it is the most intrinsically dangerous drug - far from it.


...It is the most damaging because it is the most available drug.


...And in the recent years when alcohol was made much more available, predictably the harm caused by alcohol has risen as well.


...In recent years we have lowered the drinking age - and more young people are being harmed much more often.


...We have allowed the sale of liquor in more places for longer hours.


...The resulting harm is there to be seen by anyone who cares to look - in the carnage on streets and in an alcohol-fuelled crime wave.


...Nothing makes it more obvious that this government has its priorities wrong &nbsp;than its casual attitude to alcohol.


...If the government truly wanted to reduce crime, it would make alcohol less available.


...If the government truly wanted to reduce the health bill and make New Zealand more productive, it would reduce the availability of alcohol.


...The government is so cynical that it comes in here and pronounces grimly about the toll alcohol causes.


...But government members are the first to sneer about nanny state when someone tries to fix the problems.


...They claim to be anti-crime, but they also sneer and call anyone who tries to reduce crime the &lsquo;fun police.&rsquo;


...But the number of road deaths among 15-29 year olds did not fall anywhere near as much.


...Last year, if the toll among 15-29 year olds had fallen by the same amount as the general population, there would have been twenty fewer deaths of young New Zealanders.


...So why would the toll not have fallen among young people the way it fell among the rest of the population?


...It&rsquo;s because the drinking age was lowered.


...In the years prior to 1999 the number of dead drivers who had a blood alcohol level above the legal limit had been tracking down.


...Since 1999, when the purchase age was lowered, the number of dead drivers has stopped tracking down.


...Because we reduced the age, more young people are being killed and injured.


...In 2000 there were 4,079 fifteen to 29 year old car and van drivers involved in injury crashes.


...In 2007, there were 6,538 - an increase of sixty percent.


...The number of injuries among young people is far greater than the number among the general population.


...The research in New Zealand and around the world is clear: There is a direct link between the availability of alcohol and the level of harm caused by alcohol.


...Between half and three quarters of all police work is associated in some way with alcohol abuse.


...Two out of three people the police deal with as offenders have been using alcohol prior to the offence being committed.


...So I support the measuresin this Bill to reduce access to alcohol.


...And I condemn the people who call it nanny state, or who call anyone voting for this the &lsquo;fun police.&rsquo;


...I condemn anyone who says that a vote for mild restrictions on this dangerous drug is for prohibition.


...Sensible control is not prohibition, and pretending they are the same is irresponsible and distorted.


...Five or six years ago some members who are now in government bitterly attacked me because I took steps to increase the excise rate charged on alcoholic drinks in the range 14-23% alcohol by volume.


...They were strong drinks that kids were buying and getting smashed on. 

...One of the principal manufacturers immediately reduced the alcoholic content of his product from 23% to 13.9%.


...There was a decline in the quantities of &lsquo;light alcohol&rsquo; drinks released for sale of around 80 percent.


...Overall alcohol consumption went down by half a million litres after the excise duty was increased.


...What that shows is that we can make a difference.


...I support reducing the availability of alcohol for young people and I support more restrictions on alcohol advertising and availability in the community.


...If the government wants to keep the wild promises it has made to seriously reduce crime in New Zealand it had better come back into this House with more measures.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>National Govt has a casual attitude to the harm caused by alcohol abuse</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-03-10T13:13:35+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/6578b931cd39821fc3cb4a9a7fb0348c-35.html#unique-entry-id-35</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/6578b931cd39821fc3cb4a9a7fb0348c-35.html#unique-entry-id-35</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The government&rsquo;s casual attitude to alcohol availability shows it has its priorities wrong, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton told parliament on the introduction of the Sale and Supply of Liquor bill.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;Alcohol is an enormous factor in crime.   Between half and three quarters of all police work is associated in some way with alcohol abuse.   Two out of three people the police deal with as offenders have been using alcohol prior to the offence being committed.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;But government members are the first to sneer about nanny state when someone tries to fix the problems.   They claim to be anti-crime, but they also sneer and call anyone who tries to reduce crime the &lsquo;fun police.&rsquo;


&nbsp;


&ldquo;Alcohol causes between one and a half and two and a half billion dollars worth of economic and social harm every year.   It is by far the most damaging drug in this country.   It is the most damaging not because it is the most intrinsically dangerous drug - far from it.   It is the most damaging because it is the most available drug.&nbsp;  And in the recent years when alcohol was made much more available, predictably the harm caused by alcohol has risen as well.&rdquo;


&nbsp;


Last year, if the road toll among 15-29 year olds had fallen by the same amount as the general population, there would have been twenty fewer deaths of young New Zealanders.


&nbsp;


In the years prior to 1999 the number of dead drivers who had a blood alcohol level above the legal limit had been tracking down.   Since 1999, when the purchase age was lowered, the number of dead drivers has stopped tracking down.


&nbsp;


In 2000 there were 4,079 fifteen to 29 year old car and van drivers involved in injury crashes.   In 2007, there were 6,538 - an increase of sixty percent.   The number of injuries among young people is far greater than the number among the general population.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;Sensible control is not prohibition, and pretending they are the same is irresponsible and distorted.   I support reducing the availability of alcohol for young people and I support more restrictions on alcohol advertising and availability in the community,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Comment on agriculture - March 2009</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Columns</category><dc:date>2009-03-12T13:12:14+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/04e87b9f9d69b728aec2f99cf05614a4-34.html#unique-entry-id-34</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/04e87b9f9d69b728aec2f99cf05614a4-34.html#unique-entry-id-34</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[ACC costs are as significant for farmers as they are for any self-employed businessperson.   Farming has its share of risk, so the premiums can be higher than in many industries.


I think ACC is far better for farmers than a personal liability scheme such as many overseas countries have.   Imagine if farmers could be sued for personal injury to anyone who came on their land.


Currently the National government is getting ACC ready to be taken back to the failed system of the nineties, when businesspeople had to wade through bureaucracy to choose an ACC provider best suited to their needs.


Farmers should beware of a competitive ACC system.   Costs are likely to rise far more for farmers than for others.   It&rsquo;s estimated that ACC levies for farmers would rise 250%.   That&rsquo;s three and a half times.


In 2004 the then-government of Australia got an independent report prepared on accident compensation costs over there.   It found that levies in Australia&rsquo;s competitive market were twice as expensive as those in New Zealand for the primary sector.


Not only that, but deadweight admin costs in New Zealand are about a third of the level in Australia.


There&rsquo;s one thing even worse than higher levies &ndash; and that is not getting real coverage for your money.


When ACC is replaced by businesses competing with each other, one way they try to offer lower premiums is by reducing the amount they set aside to pay for claims that take a long time to show up.


This happened in Australia: when those claims finally started to come in, they didn&rsquo;t have enough set aside.   They couldn&rsquo;t raise premiums to make up the shortfall because their customers would buy elsewhere.   As a result, the business went under &ndash; and who was around to pick up the bill for the injured farmers who had paid their levies?   Nobody.   They had to pay all over again.


In the meantime, do you wonder what happened to the executives that ran the company into the ground?   They probably got knighthoods.   No wonder National wants to bring those back too.


A government that is fiddling around with taking ACC back to the failed policies of the nineties is a government that has its priorities wrong.


There is a global economic crisis underway.   There is unprecedented risk and opportunity to our agricultural sector from the way our trading partners see climate change.   Market opportunities and development of the rural economy at home are much more important than trying to find ways for insurance companies and money market dealers to make a dollar at the expense of farmers. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Use power company profits to reduce winter power bills</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-03-12T13:10:56+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/afc16776639284cfd9d080c252a14873-33.html#unique-entry-id-33</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/afc16776639284cfd9d080c252a14873-33.html#unique-entry-id-33</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Strong profit increases in the state-owned power companies should be returned to consumers to help with winter power bills, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.


&nbsp;


He says low income households could be given $200 toward winter heating costs and power companies would still contribute as much to the government than they did last year.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;$200 would mean some households had a month of relief from winter heating costs.   For superannuitants, beneficiaries and people who have lost their jobs in the downturn, it would make a huge difference.&rdquo;


&nbsp;


Mighty River Power recorded a profit of $234 million in the last six months of last year.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;That on its own is enough for every household&nbsp;in New Zealand to get a cheque of nearly $200.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;Genesis&rsquo; profit for the half year is up by 38 per cent, Transpower&rsquo;s is up by over a quarter and Meridian is the most profitable of the lot.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;At the same time that the people&rsquo;s own power companies are booming, the people who own them are heading for a winter when many will struggle to pay the bills.   The government should help low income households out by returning some of the huge dividends,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said.


&nbsp;


According to Statistics New Zealand, there are about 1.4 million households.   If half were eligible for a $200 winter power rebate, that would cost $140 million. $200 is the estimated winter power bill for a month for the lowest income half of households.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>National vote-buying with taxpayers&#x2019; money</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-03-12T13:09:00+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/eb4103f8ef7809eed2eed732ba339924-32.html#unique-entry-id-32</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/eb4103f8ef7809eed2eed732ba339924-32.html#unique-entry-id-32</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton is appalled at National&rsquo;s use of taxpayer money to change electorate office funding so that government MPs get an increase four times greater than Opposition MPs.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;They have noticed that government MPs have bigger electorates by land area than Opposition MPs, because the Opposition tends to hold inner city seats.   So they have put a fix in and handed out more money to big electorates.   This is a gerrymander.


&nbsp;


Not only that but the rules they are putting in place are different for Maori seats.   Maori seats qualify for extra funding if they are over 10,000 square kilometres.   General seats qualify if they are over 20,000.   I can think of no reason why a differentiation should be made.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;National is so brazen it has even left out the biggest electorate in the country &ndash; Rongotai.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;The busiest electorate offices in the country are inner city electorates.   Imagine the outcry from National if Labour had given busier offices more.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;Most National MPs don&rsquo;t need extra support staff; they just need to work harder.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;This is the same National Party that claimed to be the very soul of injured innocence when the Electoral Finance Act was changed - yet, whatever your opinion of the EFA, at least everyone was treated the same.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;The National Party has spent all this week reverting to form - backward-looking, mean and getting its priorities all wrong.


&nbsp;


&nbsp;&ldquo;Now National is taking money from higher priority uses to buy the votes of its own supporters.   This is exactly the same National party that used to gave Alamein Kopu a nice Beehive office to secure its majority.   Turns out that John Key is made of the same stuff.&rdquo;]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Cutting holidays doesn&#x2019;t stack up with 9-day fortnight</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-03-23T13:05:59+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/15e8a5b1b85fc6b2683da552ac2fd5d4-31.html#unique-entry-id-31</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/15e8a5b1b85fc6b2683da552ac2fd5d4-31.html#unique-entry-id-31</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Cutting holidays doesn&rsquo;t stack up with 9-day fortnight


&nbsp;


It doesn&rsquo;t make sense for National to remove four weeks minimum annual leave at the same time that it is trying to encourage a nine day fortnight, Progressive leader Jim Anderton says.


&nbsp;


Four weeks minimum annual leave was a Progressive Party initiative.   It was introduced as a result of a member&rsquo;s bill introduced by Progressive MP Matt Robson.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;Cutting four weeks&rsquo; leave is hypocritical for a government that took 27 days of holidays in its first 100 days in office.   What&rsquo;s good for National MPs ought to be good for working New Zealanders,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;Calling the axing of holidays a &lsquo;buy-back&rsquo; doesn&rsquo;t change the fact that it cuts the minimum holiday entitlement.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;Thousands of workers who are paid just over the minimum wage will be presented with employment contracts that say&nbsp;they request cash instead of annual leave &ndash; and their employers will tell them &lsquo;we will have to cut your pay if you don&rsquo;t sign.&rsquo;


&nbsp;


&ldquo;The same employer could then put their hand out for a government subsidy to reduce that worker&rsquo;s hours by a day a fortnight.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;National is returning to its nasty, anti-worker roots.&rdquo;]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Auckland road tax shows National doesn&#x2019;t get agriculture</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-03-17T13:05:36+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/5ddc9e8b1ecf4a4f8764ec55b6ed6412-30.html#unique-entry-id-30</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/5ddc9e8b1ecf4a4f8764ec55b6ed6412-30.html#unique-entry-id-30</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Taxing rural communities more to pay for Auckland&rsquo;s roads shows that National doesn&rsquo;t understand the importance of agriculture for New Zealand&rsquo;s economy, Opposition agriculture spokesperson Jim Anderton says.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;The whole country can benefit from roads that boost Auckland&rsquo;s economy; But Auckland can benefit from the economic activity of the rest of the country too.   How many farms are in Queen Street?   When rural communities have to pay for roads they don&rsquo;t use, it is a drag on them.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;The decision to make farmers pay more for Auckland roads is a decision by Auckland money market dealers who don&rsquo;t understand our primary industry.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;It&rsquo;s fairer to pay for extra projects locally, because local communities can best decide their top priorities and also decide whether the extra cost is worth it.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;The National Government has no new ideas so it&rsquo;s going back to its old form in government &ndash; asking farmers and rural communities to pay more and more, while providing less and less services.&rdquo;]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>The future of New Zealand&#x2019;s overseas development aid</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Speeches</category><dc:date>2009-03-27T13:03:56+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/e88daad1b5e5c4f611cd3dd2e2e2c15d-29.html#unique-entry-id-29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/e88daad1b5e5c4f611cd3dd2e2e2c15d-29.html#unique-entry-id-29</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Remarks at the summit on the future of New Zealand&rsquo;s overseas development aid


...My colleague Matt Robson, the Progressives deputy leader, was the aid minister responsible for setting up NZ Aid.


...I want to talk to you about why poverty should be the focus of our aid and development efforts.


...And I particularly want to address the suggestion that we should switch our focus from poverty to economic development.


...I used to be minister of economic development.   So I have some insight into what is involved in an economic development programme.


...Economic development is not something you can impose from the top.


...You don&rsquo;t go into a region, or into an entire country, and say: &lsquo;this is how you are going to develop your economy.&rsquo;


...I&rsquo;ve listened to comments saying we should make our aid efforts benefit New Zealand companies.


...We don&rsquo;t give aid to benefit New Zealand companies.   We do it because we are good global citizens.


...New Zealanders have always been good international citizens, prepared to shoulder our burden in the world.   More New Zealanders have died in overseas wars as a proportion of our population than nearly any other country because we are always prepared to do more than our bit.


...Trying to sell more of our exports to the poorest countries is not much of an economic strategy.


...We are not going to develop export markets for New Zealand by focusing on how much we can sell to the poorest people in the world.


...We should certainly be open to trade with the least developed countries of the world.


...The last government allowed tariff free access to products from least developed countries as far back as 2002.


...The Greens and a number of trade union leaders were strongly against it.


...But the truth is - the proportion of imports from least developed countries hasn&rsquo;t changed since then.


...We haven&rsquo;t been swamped by imports as critics claimed we would.


It also hasn&rsquo;t been the pathway to prosperity for the poor countries, as some advocates claimed it would be.


...You have to do much more.


...We have to focus on much more than economic development or even aid itself.


...If you focus only on economic development then in a country like the Solomons you would try to aid more value from the trees being extracted there.&nbsp;  But there is much&nbsp;more to do than that.


...We are talking about countries where a total billion people live in conditions we associate with the fourteenth century deprivation.


...Bringing them out of poverty requires a focus on good government, on transparency and ending corruption.


...More money is stolen from Africa every year by corrupt governments than the world gives the entire continent in aid. 

...If we simply stopped Western banks from being used to hold the stolen proceeds of looting in Africa by corrupt political leaders, it would have the same effect as the overnight doubling of aid budgets.


...A focus on economic development doesn&rsquo;t even look at this issue - a focus on poverty does,


...Not much is going to be done about poverty in a country ruined by civil war, where any money that comes in gets spent on strengthening the military, where communities are at constant risk of attack and where the spoils of victory are distributed to one side or the other.


...Focusing on these issues is crucial - but you cannot do a good job of that if you focus on economic development alone.


...In the last year, trillions of dollars of wealth has been destroyed all over the world as financial markets collapse.


...Governments everywhere acknowledge this economic crisis and they are scrambling to make an urgent and drastic response.


...Why aren&rsquo;t the billion people living in poverty an urgent global crisis too?


...We could have fixed their problem forever for a fraction of the amount lost in the global financial crisis.


...The entire annual aid budget of the world is less than the amount lost by some of those failed merchant banks and gigantic corporations alone.


...What we lack is not the means, but the will.


...Smashing NZAid, setting the clock back to the past, is a hugely backward step and it&nbsp;interferes with our ability to fight poverty.


...It is a mistake, the National government should not go down that road and we should not allow them to do so.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Focus aid on poverty elimination</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-03-27T13:00:43+13:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/76c0150c76f1cd69057641fdb7477185-28.html#unique-entry-id-28</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/76c0150c76f1cd69057641fdb7477185-28.html#unique-entry-id-28</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[A focus on economic development rather than poverty elimination will mean we don&rsquo;t focus on some critical problems affecting the world&rsquo;s poorest countries, Progressive leader Jim Anderton told a summit on the future of New Zealand aid today.


&nbsp;


Jim Anderton is a former economic development minister, and Progressive party deputy leader Matt Robson set up NZAid when he was overseas development minister.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;The poorest billion people in the world live in conditions we associate with fourteenth century deprivation.   Bringing them out of poverty requires a focus on good government, on transparency and ending corruption,&rdquo; Jim Anderton says.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;More money is stolen from Africa every year by corrupt governments than the world gives the entire continent in aid.   It gets stolen and put in western banks.   If we simply stopped Western banks from being used to hold the stolen proceeds of looting in Africa by corrupt political leaders, it would have the same effect as the overnight doubling of aid budgets.   A focus on economic development doesn&rsquo;t even look at this issue - a focus on poverty does.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;A focus on poverty requires a focus on post-conflict recovery.   Not much is going to be done about poverty in a country ruined by civil war, where any money that comes in gets spent on strengthening the military.   Focusing on these issues is crucial - but you cannot do a good job of that if you focus on economic development alone.&rdquo;


&nbsp;


Jim Anderton says it is profoundly wrong to make assistance to New Zealand companies the focus of our aid effort.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;We don&rsquo;t give aid to benefit New Zealand companies.   We do it because we are good global citizens.   Trying to sell more of our exports to the poorest countries is not much of an economic strategy.   We are not going to develop export markets for New Zealand by focusing on how much we can sell to the poorest people in the world.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;We should certainly be open to trade with the least developed countries of the world.   But trade reform alone, while necessary, is not sufficient.&rdquo;]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Maori Party sides with disgusting humanitarian abuse</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-04-28T12:57:53+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/270c74bb6ad258c366a86672995e9e6d-27.html#unique-entry-id-27</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/270c74bb6ad258c366a86672995e9e6d-27.html#unique-entry-id-27</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Maori Party sides with disgusting humanitarian abuse


&nbsp;


Progressive leader Jim Anderton is disgusted that the Maori Party has sided with appalling humanitaran abuses by blocking a motion in Parliament that expressed concern about the dire humanitarian situation in Northern Sri Lanka.


&nbsp;


The United Nations estimates that since January 200,000 civilians have fled their homes, 4,500 have been killed and 12,000 wounded.   The Red Cross has helped over ten thousand wounded civilians caught up in fighting between Sri Lankan Government and the Liberation Tamil Tigers of Eelam (LTTE).


&nbsp;


Today Jim Anderton asked parliament to pass a motion expressing concern about the dire humanitarian situation in Northern Sri Lanka, asking that civilians be spared and calling on respect for international humanitarian law.   All parliamentary parties were given a copy of the notice of motion in advance.   Only the Maori Party stopped it being adopted.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;The Maori Party&rsquo;s behaviour is outrageous,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;The situation in Sri Lanka is dire.   There is very little we can do from here, but one thing we can do is express support for the civilians caught up in fighting.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;No one is being asked to take sides.   But parliamentarians were asked to express concern, they were asked to express support for allowing civilians to leave the combat zone, they were asked to condemn violence against civilians leaving the combat zone and they were asked to respect international humanitarian law.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;What on that list could any reasonable person be opposed to?&rdquo;


&nbsp;


The motion read:


&nbsp;


That this House, notes its deep concern at the dire humanitarian situation in Northern Sri Lanka and calls upon both the Sri Lankan Government and the Liberation Tamil Tigers of Eelam (LTTE) to immediately stop hostilities to allow those civilians in the combat zone to move to safety, condemns all acts of violence and intimidation which are preventing civilians from leaving the conflict area, and calls on both sides to respect international humanitarian law and to protect and assist the civilian population in combat zone, as in the internally displaced persons (IDP) camps.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>MPs should not be able to fight by-elections</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-05-05T12:55:19+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/3b8a0fda3e783d4632f9f3b24003407f-26.html#unique-entry-id-26</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/3b8a0fda3e783d4632f9f3b24003407f-26.html#unique-entry-id-26</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[It&rsquo;s a farce that sitting MPs are standing for election to parliament, Wigram MP Jim Anderton says. 

He is drafting a members&rsquo; bill to stop MPs from standing for parliament in by-elections.   &nbsp;


&ldquo;In Mt Albert, there are three MPs standing for parliament.   They are already MPs.   If they want to represent the electorate, they already can.   Any list MP can open an electorate office in Mt Albert and be a good representative.


&ldquo;What those MPs are really doing in using their parliamentary salaries and resources to bring in someone on a party list who has nothing to do with Mt Albert.   For example, if the National candidate were to win she would be an MP just as she is now.   But she would bring in a new MP who virtually no one has heard of, and who might never have visited Mt Albert in his or her life.


&ldquo;MPs who contest the seat but lose bring MMP into disrepute.   Since there are three MPs contesting the seat, at least two of them have to lose and maybe all three will lose.   If they are going to test their mandate, they should be prepared to live with the result.


&ldquo;In a general election, no MP has insurance.   They have to get enough votes in their electorate or for their party, or they are out.   It&rsquo;s a democratic farce to have different rules in a by-election.


&ldquo;A simple bill that stopped a sitting MP standing in a by-election would force MPs to make a meaningful choice - if they really want to contest a seat, they should resign from parliament&nbsp; and contest it on the same basis as anyone else.


&ldquo;MPs shouldn&rsquo;t fight a parliamentary by-election while they&rsquo;re drawing a full parliamentary salary,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Launch of the Finsec Banking petition</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Speeches</category><dc:date>2009-05-05T12:54:05+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/41b99f83cfb2d7e39a8e2af331096232-25.html#unique-entry-id-25</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/41b99f83cfb2d7e39a8e2af331096232-25.html#unique-entry-id-25</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[I would like to express my support for the Finsec petition, and for the retention of New Zealand jobs.   Banks in New Zealand have been making enormous profits by mistreating customers and exploiting staff.


In the current global financial situation - the overseas owned banks in New Zealand are some of the most profitable in the world.   But they are still firing staff.


It&rsquo;s time for them to give something back.   It&rsquo; time for them to support New Zealand as good corporate citizens.   The taxpayer is giving the banks a crucial government guarantee.   The government is right to do so.   The banks need the guarantee to keep functioning. 


In a crisis, New Zealanders should be prepared to help each other out.   And we should be prepared to use the power of government to make our economy stronger.


But there is a quid pro quo.   It is perfectly reasonable to ask that in exchange for getting support from New Zealanders, the banks should, in return, support New Zealand in general and their own staff in particular. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Tribute to Senior-Constable Len Snee</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Speeches</category><dc:date>2009-05-12T12:51:52+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/bbaad965aba239438908dcba0becd59a-24.html#unique-entry-id-24</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/bbaad965aba239438908dcba0becd59a-24.html#unique-entry-id-24</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Speech in the House


I join with other party leaders in expressing my deepest condolences to the family of Len Snee.


I too wish a speedy and full recovery to the injured as they lie in their hospitals.


I send my best wishes to their families who must be desperately worried as they pray and wait at the bedsides of the fallen.


Maybe the most sombre thing we do in here is send men and women into danger on our behalf.


We send them out knowing that sometimes, on our darkest days, they won&rsquo;t come back.


When we send them out, we send them to defend New Zealanders.


They are there for us.


They go out as our bravest, and when they fall, some of us all falls with them.


Every police officer knows goes about their duty on every apparently normal day, with danger and unpredictability lurking.


They take on that danger on our behalf.


We can never repay sufficiently our debt to them, and we can not begin to repay the debt we owe to those who give their lives for us.


Most of us have learned a lot about Len Snee in the last few days.


We learned about his professionalism as an officer.   We learned about his popularity in his community.


So I pay tribute to him personally and I hope his family, as they grieve, can find some small condolence in the respect and admiration his country is expressing.


I hope New Zealanders will show respect by declining to seek political mileage from this death while this wound is still so raw.


It is very easy to exploit the strong emotions we all feel over a tragedy like this.   It is easy, but it&rsquo;s wrong.


I want to congratulate the prime minister, and say I agree with his reaction when he said he was not going to be stampeded into a call for arming the police in their day to day operations.


That was the right response.


There will be lessons to be learned from this tragedy, and we will all have to reflect carefully on them.   But the time for making political points isn&rsquo;t here yet.


I am sure the family of the murdered officer are not yet ready to have him used for point-scoring about guns, nor for political mileage about drugs nor crime, nor about policing, nor mental health, nor any of the other issues that will inevitably give us pause.


This is a time to give thanks to the men and women whom we ask to protect us, to share the grief of Len Snee&rsquo;s family and friends, and to express our strength as a community that comes together and makes our bonds stronger when we are confronted with tragedy.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Comment on agriculture - May 2009</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Columns</category><dc:date>2009-05-12T12:50:00+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/547f799715fe2128804155f239f29115-23.html#unique-entry-id-23</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/547f799715fe2128804155f239f29115-23.html#unique-entry-id-23</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[In Parliament this month hours and hours will be spent debating the future of Auckland.   There are several bills going through &ndash; some under urgency, some going to select committee for hearing.   My side of the House is arguing for a referendum on the final decision.


All this because the Auckland region is critically important to New Zealand&rsquo;s future.


It says something about our priorities, though: As important as Auckland is, nothing that happens in the next twenty years is likely to make Auckland as important to our economic future as our primary industries are and have been for over 130 years.


Of course, our primary industries are in much better shape than Auckland &ndash; that&rsquo;s one reason why they&rsquo;re more important to New Zealand&rsquo;s future


But we do need careful thought about where our farming is going, and how we need to prepare and to change.


The future is already here.


In developed countries, demand for our produce is affected by consumer concern about environmental and health issues, by concern about animal welfare, and calls to &lsquo;buy local food.&rsquo;


For example, a letter to the editor of the Economist magazine this month said this, &ldquo;Given the burden on health from an inordinately meat-based diet, the contribution that beef production makes to climate change, and the extraordinary toxic soup of pesticides, steroids and antibiotics that are increasingly used in the production of meat, one assumes that societies around the world will choose a different path to &lsquo;affluence&rsquo;.&rdquo;


Just about every statement in that letter is wrong &ndash; but its publication in one of the world&rsquo;s most respected publications tells us that there are plenty of influential people in our markets who are worrying about this stuff.


Here in New Zealand, I know of so-called farmers markets where customers are urged to &lsquo;support local farmers by buying local.&rsquo;   Actually, if the world starts buying local food, we will have a lot to eat and not much to sell.   I can&rsquo;t see that would support our local farmers at all.


We need our farmers to be good enough to go global.   We need the world&rsquo;s consumers to be interested in buying our produce.


And we need to deal with other threats, like rising competition from emerging economic powers like China, India and Brazil.


Of course, as those economies and others like them grow wealthier, demand for protein is growing too.


If we are going to seize this opportunity and stay ahead of our competitors, we have to keep changing.


Decisions about the right marketing strategy for each producer are going to be made by individual businesses.   But New Zealand branded product generally occupies a valuable niche of its own &ndash; and the more we can exploit our strong positioning, the better we can prosper.   Our niche is to be a highly eco-conscious producer of high quality products.


We cannot compete on price alone, but we must be price competitive.   Our advantage is not on low cost of inputs &ndash; not in a first world country far from our markets.   Our price advantage will only be achieved by efficiencies that come through science and research.


When the world looks at our products we want New Zealand farming to represent quality, environmentally responsible and unique.   This applies whether we are marketing to a bulk commodity buyer, a purchaser of ingredients, or a consumer of our high value finished products in the supermarket.


But it also means we have to broaden our business base to leverage the strength of our primary sector.   Just as a European or Japanese&nbsp; company makes money when a New Zealander drinks New Zealand beer brewed and bottled in New Zealand, we need to own more businesses that clip the ticket in Europe and Asia when a consumer there tucks into locally manufactured meals.


That in turns means we have to adapt our industry structures.   They have to be strong enough to thrive in the changing global market.


None of this is easy.   All of it is crucial for New Zealand.   It&rsquo;s about time we spent as much energy working it out as we spend deciding on roads and councils in Auckland.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Anderton brands Auckland reorganisation as the &#x201c;Removal of Democracy&#x201d; bill</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-05-18T12:48:34+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/1b193b712976787bcfcf6ce605135ff8-22.html#unique-entry-id-22</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/1b193b712976787bcfcf6ce605135ff8-22.html#unique-entry-id-22</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill should be renamed the Removal of Democracy Bill, said Progressive leader Jim Anderton in parliament today.   He was speaking on the proposal to create an Auckland &lsquo;super city&rsquo;.


&ldquo;The Local Government Act would have given Aucklanders a say in one of the most significant changes in local government in their region they will see in their lifetime, but they are not going to have a chance to have that say&rdquo;, Jim Anderton said.


&ldquo;In essence it is a great leap backwards to the days when 21 out of twenty two councillors lived east of Queen Street.   It was the reason why a ward system had to be introduced so that all Aucklanders could actually be represented on their own Council.   The conservative rightwingers have always resented that change and this proposal returns Auckland to the past they have always hankered after.


&ldquo;In real life terms it means, for example, the end of free swimming pools for the kids of South Auckland and any other future say for most Aucklanders in the way they want their local communities to deliver for them.&nbsp;   Does anyone believe that those pools will continue to be free under the government&rsquo;s proposal?&nbsp;   I can already hear the self appointed Mayor of the super city, John Banks, making speeches about why the ratepayers of Auckland City shouldn&rsquo;t be subsidising the swimming pools of south Auckland&rdquo;, Jim Anderton said.&nbsp;


&ldquo;I support a strong regional government for Auckland.&nbsp;   There used to be one &ndash; the Auckland Regional Authority (ARA) and I know about it because I was elected to it in 1977.   We bought all the major regional parks and replaced the entire ancient bus fleet with new Mercedes Benz.&nbsp;


&ldquo;In 1989, the Labour government replaced the ARA with the Auckland Regional Council (ARC).   In 1992, the then National government wanted to sell the Ports of Auckland and the water services, so they diverted ownership of these and other profitable assets into the newly established Auckland Regional Services Trust (ARST) with the plan to sell.   What a shambles that would have been if it had been allowed to happen.   It took all of the strength of the political group I led at the time to put a stop to that.&nbsp;   Auckland has reaped the benefit ever since,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said.


&ldquo;Now they&rsquo;re having another go.&nbsp;   This is a privatisers&rsquo; dream to sell the community assets of Auckland, and is entirely in line with Rodney Hide and the ACT party&rsquo;s ideologies.&nbsp;   Does anyone believe that this is in the best interests of Aucklanders?&nbsp;


&ldquo;You can understand in those circumstances why the National ACT government doesn&rsquo;t want people to have a say as to whether or not they want this outrageous piece of community destruction to go ahead,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said in the House today.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>21st Anniversary of the Needle Exchange Programme</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Speeches</category><dc:date>2009-05-19T12:46:31+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/29d6c0a4cf4831ecdda124ef9f3aebab-21.html#unique-entry-id-21</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/29d6c0a4cf4831ecdda124ef9f3aebab-21.html#unique-entry-id-21</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[I think most people know by now that I am strongly anti-drugs. ...  I don&rsquo;t like drug abuse, I don&rsquo;t like the impact it has on people and on entire communities.   I have crusaded against cannabis and P, and strongly pushed for more restrictions on the availability of the drug that causes the most harm in New Zealand - which actually happens to be alcohol.


I&rsquo;m anti-drugs not because I&rsquo;m judgmental, but because of the harm drugs do. 

...Why would I support and expand a needle exchange programme that provides free needles for intravenous drug users?


The answer is exactly the same reason that I&rsquo;m anti-drugs: Because I want to minimise the harm caused by drugs.


Back in 2002, I was appointed as the Associate Minister of Health and the minister responsible for drug policy. ...  It said the programme saved - back then, seven years ago - $35 million in treatment costs since it had been established.


The report said plainly that the needle exchange programme reduces the harm caused by drug use.   It told me the programme back then had helped to prevent twenty deaths from AIDS and more than two thousand cases of Hepatitis C and HIV/AIDS.


When you get a report like that in government, you sit up and take notice.  

It makes a pleasant change from all the doom and gloom about things that don&rsquo;t work.


...The needle exchange programme was started up to reduce transmission of HIV and Hepatitis C between people who inject drugs. 

...One was a recommendation to remove a legal anomaly around the possession of needles and syringes.


As a result of that 2002 report I took a Bill into Parliament changing the Misuse of Drugs Act in 2004. 

...And it also implemented that strong recommendation about changing the law regarding 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.&nbsp; 

...Everyone here knows there was a lot of concern in the community about the needle exchange programme.   And I remember a speech was given on the Bill by one MP at the time, saying he was worried about it.   He thought a user should have to prove to a court their needles came from an approved source.


...The National MP who made that statement in parliament is now the Minister of Health - Tony Ryall. 

...You can look up his comment yourself if you want to - it&rsquo;s right there in Hansard on 15 September 2004. 

...I am going to give the benefit of the doubt to the now Minister 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.


And on this day when we celebrate 21 years of a successful programme, you can be sure that we need to be vigilant in defence of good ideas.


Just because an idea is good, and just because it works, doesn&rsquo;t mean we can take for granted that it will be supported.


We later went on and 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&nbsp; Progressive Party had with Labour at the time.&nbsp;


There were people who sneered at that as liberal political correctness.   I can tell you from personal experience that there aren&rsquo;t many votes in being wise or liberal about drug abuse.   But it was then - and it is now - the right thing to do anyway.


Many others have spoken tonight about the success of the needle exchange programme. ...  I am proud to have played a part in saving many lives.  

I am pleased we have saved many millions of dollars in treatment costs that our heath system would have incurred.   And most of all I would like to congratulate the people here tonight who have done their bit over the years to make this programme a success.


...I wish you all the best in continuing to do your good work, and in keeping the programme going.


And I would like to conclude by saying I wish we didn&rsquo;t need this programme.   I wish we didn&rsquo;t have drug use causing the harm it does, wrecking the lives of many people, and wrecking many communities. 

...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 endorse it for that reason.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Needle Exchange Programme proven it worth</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-05-19T12:44:43+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/55c045945aad7f8403dc83b9d8f4eae0-20.html#unique-entry-id-20</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/55c045945aad7f8403dc83b9d8f4eae0-20.html#unique-entry-id-20</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On the 21st Anniversary of the Needle Exchange Programme (NEP) - and the 4th year of the free one-for-one exchange of needles, Jim Anderton said he would again support and expand a needle exchange programme that provides free needles for intravenous drug users.


&ldquo;The Progressive Party successfully bid for the funding to institute a free-to-users, one-for-one exchange basis in 2004, spread over 4 years,&nbsp; because we wanted to minimise the harm caused by drugs&rdquo;, Jim Anderton said at the 21st Anniversary tonight in Auckland.


&ldquo;Back in 2002, I was appointed as the Associate Minister of Health and the minister responsible for drug policy.   I received an independent review of the needle and syringe exchange programme.   It reported that the programme saves lives.   It said the programme saved - back then, seven years ago - $35 million in treatment costs since it had been established.


&ldquo;The report said plainly that the needle exchange programme reduces the harm caused by drug use.   It told me the programme back then had helped to prevent twenty deaths from AIDS and more than two thousand cases of Hepatitis C and HIV/AIDS.


&ldquo;When you get a report like that in government, you sit up and take notice.   It makes a pleasant change from all the doom and gloom about things that don&rsquo;t work.   Here was clear evidence of a programme that worked.


&ldquo;And I remember a speech was given on the Bill by one MP at the time, saying he was worried about it.   He thought a user should have to prove to a court their needles came from an approved source.


&ldquo;And while he was giving his speech an Opposition MP interjected and said this: &ldquo;Absolutely.   This provision is political correctness by a liberal Government.&rdquo;   The National MP who made that statement in parliament is now the Minister of Health - Tony Ryall.   He now has responsibility for the needle exchange programme,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said.


&ldquo;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.   And on this day when we celebrate 21 years of a successful programme, you can be sure that we need to be vigilant in defence of good ideas.


&ldquo;There were people who sneered at that as liberal political correctness.   I can tell you from personal experience there aren&rsquo;t many votes in being wise or liberal about this stuff.   But it was then, and is now, the right thing to do anyway.


&ldquo;The results have been very worthwhile.   Obviously, I wish we didn&rsquo;t need this programme.   I wish we didn&rsquo;t have drug use causing the harm it does, wrecking the lives of many people, and wrecking many communities.


&ldquo;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 endorse it for that reason&rdquo;, Jim Anderton said. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Comment on economics and the recession</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Columns</category><dc:date>2009-05-21T12:37:03+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/efb5768f931b75a2e52a6a296f573050-19.html#unique-entry-id-19</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/efb5768f931b75a2e52a6a296f573050-19.html#unique-entry-id-19</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Response to Daniel Silva's comments for Country-wide magazine


So Daniel Silva thinks that the current international recession isn&rsquo;t going to affect New Zealand much.&nbsp;   Well that&rsquo;s all right then?&nbsp;   Actually &ndash; no.&nbsp;   He&rsquo;s quite wrong to think so for two significant reasons quite aside from the fact that any nation which earns its living as an international commodities trader is going to be affected by what happens to purchasing power in our major markets.


The first of these reasons is that it&rsquo;s perfectly true that the New Zealand banking and finance sectors have not to anything like the same extent been in the business of offering the sorts of &lsquo;toxic loans&rsquo; that banks in the United States and Europe have been.&nbsp;   That&rsquo;s to say they have not been lending large sums of money on securities which are wholly inadequate to cover the loans, to people who can&rsquo;t afford the repayments and then packaging the loans in ways that make it almost impossible to untangle the debt and which spread it far beyond the originating banks.&nbsp;


But we have nevertheless experienced an overheated speculative housing boom which has now come to an end.&nbsp;   At the same time our financial securities market which, although it was re-regulated to an extent following the excesses of the nineteen eighties and nineties remains significantly less regulated than others in the OECD, has paid the price in an unprecedented series of finance company crashes.


All of this exacts a toll that leads to recessionary pressures which when coupled with the impact of the international recession means a significant downturn in our economic growth.&nbsp;   Fortunately for the incoming government they have two major advantages to assist them in responding to this situation.&nbsp;   The first is the healthy state of the New Zealand economy because of the prudent, some thought over conservative management, of the economy over the last nine years by Finance Minister Michael Cullen.&nbsp;


The irony of that is that had he followed the then advice of his successor Bill English and engaged in significant tax cutting three or four years ago the current Minister of Finance would be far less well placed to cope with recessionary pressures than he actually is.&nbsp;   No doubt that irony is lost on Mr Silva.&nbsp;


The second is that there is the backstop of local financial institutions, including the Kiwibank, which are able to pick up a certain amount of the slack although they obviously don&rsquo;t have the capacity of the major Australian banks which do business here and which we know are more significantly affected by the international downturn.


The second reason why Mr Silva is wrong is that we are already feeling the negative effects.&nbsp;   It may be, of course, that he leads a very cloistered life and has not picked up on the reports of job losses which are beginning to come with increasing rapidity.&nbsp; 


The unemployed stand at 115,000 for the quarter to March or 5% with more job losses reported daily and the Treasury reporting a possible high of more than 8%.&nbsp;


This compares very unfavourably with the figures for the past nine years which reached lows of just over 3%, a figure not seen for over two decades.


In another of life&rsquo;s little ironies these unemployment rates were largely the result of the Labour-Progressive&nbsp;government&rsquo;s emphasis on regional growth and development.&nbsp;   Both as Minister of Economic Development and Agriculture I was intent on placing considerable emphasis on regional development to the extent that we inherited an economy in which many regions were in negative growth mode and within three years we had all regions growing at rates which had not been seen for decades in some cases.&nbsp;


We maintained this throughout our nine years in office and thereby provided a cushion against subsequent unemployment.&nbsp;   It will be interesting to see if the current government can maintain that record.&nbsp;   I do know however that they will not do it by building bicycle tracks or by cutting back on the working fortnight which are measures which are no more likely to resolve unemployment than similar schemes did in the Depression of the thirties.&nbsp;   Nor will they do it by cutting public expenditure which didn&rsquo;t work in the thirties either.


The other area in which the impact is being felt, but which is possibly outside the ken of Mr Silva, is in the voluntary sector in which many organisations rely upon charitable and community trusts and similar bodies to underwrite their activities, many of which are vital to the well being of our communities.&nbsp;   These trusts, for very good reasons, have traditionally diversified their investments and in some cases had significant sums invested in overseas securities.&nbsp;


The Auckland Community Trust alone is reported as having suffered losses amounting to two billion dollars and has had to regretfully tell some of its long term beneficiaries that they can no longer be supported.&nbsp;   The potential ripple effect of that sort of loss may be incalculable.


Mr Silva is, however, right about one thing.&nbsp;   We won&rsquo;t get through the current downturn by panicking.&nbsp;   We need to keep our nerve and mange our way through the recession by continuing to invest in our future as an exporting nation.&nbsp;   But hiding our head under the blankets and pretending it isn&rsquo;t happening is not going to get us there.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Aucklanders should have an elected&#x2c; not appointed leaders</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-05-19T12:36:34+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/82daab2226c801765ec4a8d4a1986937-18.html#unique-entry-id-18</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/82daab2226c801765ec4a8d4a1986937-18.html#unique-entry-id-18</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Letting Auckland vote would be a better way to make appointees to the Auckland super city transitional agency than a secret process in a government where decision-making is melting down, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.


&ldquo;Why is the government even appointing a board?   The way we find people to run local government in New Zealand is we have democratic elections.


&ldquo;A government that listened to New Zealanders would not have a problem making a choice of leadership.   The people do the appointing for it. 

&ldquo;In a democratic election, you are much more likely to get leadership that looks like Auckland.   National seems interested only in leadership that looks like the National or ACT Party.


&ldquo;I am very concerned that the quality of decision-making in the government is falling apart as the pressure of actually governing comes on.


&ldquo;The National government is making poor decisions or refusing to make them at all.


&ldquo;It created a sense of urgency for itself over Auckland&rsquo;s super city, and now it can&rsquo;t even meet its own urgent timetable,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Winter rebate from electricity companies would be appreciated</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-05-22T12:35:16+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/1f4168f71fab0b1f9e235e19f67a0c21-17.html#unique-entry-id-17</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/1f4168f71fab0b1f9e235e19f67a0c21-17.html#unique-entry-id-17</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Knowledge that many elderly New Zealanders huddle under blankets rather than turn on unaffordable heating should be a wake-up call to the power companies to return a winter rebate to their consumers this winter, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton said today.


&ldquo;For many New Zealanders, this wintry weather brings on a bitter struggle with the cold and the dilemma of whether they can turn on a heater or not.   Low income households, the elderly and students fear their electricity bills and well they might.   I remember when the electricity bills came every two months &ndash; now the monthly bill is the same &ndash; or more &ndash; than the bi-monthly one was,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said.


&ldquo;The Commerce Commission&rsquo;s principle investigation into the wholesale or retail electricity markets which showed that the electricity companies have not breached Part 2 of the Commerce Act but their extra $4.3 billion in earnings from 2001 to mid-2007 reveals they are charging with a take no prisoners mentality.   The electricity companies&rsquo; profits are at the expense of New Zealand&rsquo;s most economically vulnerable.


&ldquo;Since 2002, I have pushed for a return to consumers of some of the big profit increases from the state-owned power companies to help them with winter power bills.   Low income households could be given $200 toward winter heating costs and power companies would still contribute as much to the government as they did last year.


&ldquo;$200 would mean some households had a month of relief from winter heating costs.   For superannuitants, beneficiaries and people who have lost their jobs in the downturn, it would make a huge difference.


&ldquo;The Commerce Commission&rsquo;s ruling on the power companies should not be seen as sign off for a return to business as usual.   I am sure that New Zealanders would be hugely relieved to see the companies acting in the interests&rsquo; of their consumers with a winter rebate during this winter,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Budget 2009 Speech</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Speeches</category><dc:date>2009-05-28T12:30:53+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/3863f416c4a0f0046c459d3d11337b7b-16.html#unique-entry-id-16</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/3863f416c4a0f0046c459d3d11337b7b-16.html#unique-entry-id-16</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[This is a budget that has all the competence that you would expect from the people responsible for Melissa Lee&rsquo;s Mt Albert by-election campaign.


...We have finally got the low inflation economy the National Party always said would deliver us its dream economy. 

...In troubled times, when the economy is rocking on the waves of global economic storms, the government has responded weakly. 


...The total value of primary sector science investment falls from $2 billion in NZ Fast Forward under the last government to as little as $1.2 billion now.


It is cutting nearly as much out of science and research in the primary sector as it is investing in infrastructure.


Government spending on science and research, on a like for like basis, falls from around a billion government dollars in the NZ Fast Forward Fund, to $610 million in National&rsquo;s replacement.


With matching private sector funding, the total investment in primary sector research and development falls by $800 million, or about 0.4 per cent of GDP.


In addition, the government has not replaced a cent of the cancelled research and development tax credit.


...It is a disaster for the future of New Zealand&rsquo;s economy.


It is a disaster for the future of our most important economic sector.


...New Zealand is preparing by switching from science and research to poltergeists and UFOs.


The government promised the primary sector it would spend more on science and research.


...It has broken that promise as surely as if it has broken its promise on personal taxes.


...In there the government points to its expected increases in nominal average wages over the next four years.


If you deduct those from the CPI &ndash; the cost of living index - there will be no increases in real wages for four years.


...This is the curious branch of economics that says the way to make New Zealand better off is to make everyone worse off.


Not since the eighties have we had an economy that didn&rsquo;t increase real wages for four consecutive years.


...If they were leaving before, wait until John Key&rsquo;s policies result in no increase in real wages for four years.


...There was a time in the past when National would have said the way to fix that would be to spend up on tax cuts.


At least Bill English and John key have now accepted that tax cuts do not stimulate the economy.


But that is not what they said when they wanted to get elected.


...But that&rsquo;s not what they said when they wanted a vote.


...They weren&rsquo;t telling the truth when they made the promises that got them elected.


...They weren&rsquo;t telling the truth when they made the promises that got them elected.


The only way that promise could have been true is if his tax policy wouldn&rsquo;t require borrowing because it was never going to go ahead anyway - and John Key knew that even before the election


Last year John Key said his tax policy was&nbsp; "appropriate for the current conditions" and would require "no additional borrowing.&rdquo;


...John Key was here in the eighties and he was here in the nineties when governments got elected and immediately tossed out the promises they got elected on.


...People gave them the benefit of the doubt that the economy had been wrecked by Roger Douglas and needed hard measures.


...John Key owes New Zealand an apology for getting himself elected on a promise that could never have been kept.


Did he know before the election that the international economic situation was deteriorating, or did he only find out when the Treasury told him?


...Cutting the Super Fund now reduces the ability of any government in the future to provide for super at anything like existing rates or retirement age.


So what Bill English is doing is pushing out by ten years the hard decisions about the huge tax increases or cuts to super that will be needed to make super affordable.


...The affordability of superannuation in the future must decline because we are no longer putting aside something now to pay for some of it in the future.


...That means the age of eligibility for superannuation will be increased to around 67; or else there will be huge tax increases required to pay for it.


...This is not a budget that prepares New Zealand for the challenges of the future.


There is not a word in here about preparing New Zealand for the effects of climate change.


The Green party will be disappointed that the sum put aside for home insulation has been slashed from a billion dollars to $244 million.


Then we look over at the infrastructure spend, and we can see that the government is shifting $258 million of spending from rail to roads.


So this is what the Greens have got for their cooperation deal with the National party.


...The National party is not doing anything for new jobs, and the Maori Party is voting for that!
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Huge cuts in primary sector science</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-05-28T12:29:12+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/0aa3bf9fc65460b94cc2543a390fe36c-15.html#unique-entry-id-15</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/0aa3bf9fc65460b94cc2543a390fe36c-15.html#unique-entry-id-15</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Nearly as much is being cut out of science and research in the primary sector as the government is investing in infrastructure, Opposition agriculture spokesperson Jim Anderton says.


The total value of primary sector science investment falls from $2 billion in NZ Fast Forward under the last government to as little as $1.2 billion now.


Like for like government spending over ten years falls from around a billion dollars in the NZ Fast Forward Fund, to $610 million in the government&rsquo;s replacement. 


&ldquo;With matching private sector funding, the total investment in primary sector research and development falls by $800 million, or about 0.4 per cent of GDP.


In addition, the government has not replaced a cent of the cancelled research and development tax credit.   Overall, the government is cutting innovation spending by more than the value of the personal tax cuts.


&ldquo;This is huge cut in science and research.   It is a disaster for the future of New Zealand&rsquo;s economy,&rdquo; Jim Anderton says.


&ldquo;Other developed countries are preparing themselves to come out of recession stronger.   New Zealand is preparing by switching from science and research to poltergeists and UFOs.


&ldquo;The government promised the primary sector it would spend more on science and research.   It has broken that promise as surely as if it has broken its promise on personal taxes.&rdquo;]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>May Edition of Jim&#x27;s eNews</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Newsletters</category><dc:date>2009-05-29T12:15:23+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/ae76903c2249a9d1a12511ec8423a964-14.html#unique-entry-id-14</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/ae76903c2249a9d1a12511ec8423a964-14.html#unique-entry-id-14</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The total value of primary sector science investment falls from $2 billion provided for in NZ Fast Forward under the last government to as little as $1.2 billion now.


Like for like government spending over ten years falls from around a billion dollars in the NZ Fast Forward Fund, to $610 million in the government&rsquo;s replacement.   &ldquo;With matching private sector funding, the total investment in primary sector research and development falls by $800 million, or about 0.4 per cent of GDP.


...The knowledge that many elderly New Zealanders huddle under blankets rather than turn on unaffordable heating should be a wake-up call to the power companies to return a winter rebate to their consumers this winter.


For many New Zealanders, this wintry weather brings on a bitter struggle with the cold and the dilemma of whether they can turn on a heater or not. ...  I remember when the electricity bills came every two months &ndash; now the monthly bill is the same &ndash; or more &ndash; than the bi-monthly one was.


The Commerce Commission&rsquo;s investigation into the wholesale and retail electricity markets showed that the electricity companies have not breached Part 2 of the Commerce Act but their extra $4.3 billion in earnings from 2001 to mid-2007 reveals they are charging with a take no prisoners mentality. 

...Since 2002, I have pushed for a return to consumers of some of the big profit increases from the state-owned power companies to help them with winter power bills.   Low income households could be given $200 toward winter heating costs and power companies would still contribute as much to the government as they did last year. $200 would mean some households had a month of relief from winter heating costs. 

...The Commerce Commission&rsquo;s ruling on the power companies should not be seen as a sign off for a return to business as usual.   I am sure that New Zealanders would be hugely relieved to see the companies acting in the interests&rsquo; of their consumers with a winter rebate during this winter.


...He&rsquo;s quite wrong to think so for two significant reasons quite aside from the fact that any nation which earns its living as an international commodities trader is going to be affected by what happens to purchasing power in our major markets.

...Letting Auckland vote would be a better way to make appointees to the Auckland super city transitional agency than a secret process in a government where decision-making is melting down.


...It created a sense of urgency for itself over Auckland&rsquo;s super city, and now it can&rsquo;t even meet its own urgent timetable.


...On the 21st Anniversary of the Needle Exchange Programme (NEP) - and the 4th year of the free one-for-one exchange of needles, I again would support and expand a needle exchange programme that provides free needles for intravenous drug users.


The Progressive Party successfully bid in 2004 for $4 million over four years to fund free-to-users, one-for-one exchange of used needles because we wanted to minimise the harm caused by drugs&rdquo;.


...I wish we didn&rsquo;t have drug use causing the harm it does, wrecking the lives of many people, and wrecking many communities.


...And if we care about vulnerable victims then our responsibility is to reduce the harm to them as much as we can. 

...The Local Government Act would have given Aucklanders a say in one of the most significant changes in local government in their region that they will see in their lifetime, but they are not going to have a chance to have that say.


...It was the reason why a ward system had to be introduced so that all Aucklanders could actually be represented on their own Council. 

...In real life terms it means, for example, the end of free swimming pools for the kids of South Auckland and any other future say for most Aucklanders in the way they want their local communities to deliver for them.&nbsp; ...  I can already hear the self appointed Mayor of the super city, John Banks, making speeches about why the ratepayers of Auckland City shouldn&rsquo;t be subsidising the swimming pools of south Auckland.&nbsp;


...There used to be one &ndash; the Auckland Regional Authority (ARA) and I know about it because I was elected to it in 1977. 

...In 1992, the then National government wanted to sell the Ports of Auckland and the water services, so they diverted ownership of these and other profitable assets into the newly established Auckland Regional Services Trust (ARST) with the plan to sell. 

...This is a privatisers&rsquo; dream to sell the community assets of Auckland, and is entirely in line with Rodney Hide and the ACT party&rsquo;s ideologies.&nbsp; 

...You can understand in those circumstances why the National ACT government doesn&rsquo;t want people to have a say as to whether or not they want this outrageous piece of community destruction to go ahead. 

...Maybe the most sombre thing we do in Parliament and government is send men and women into danger on our behalf. 

...They go out as our bravest, and when they fall, some of us all falls with them.


...We can never repay sufficiently our debt to them, and we can not begin to repay the debt we owe to those who give their lives for us.


...So I pay tribute to him personally and I hope his family, as they grieve, can find some small condolence in the respect and admiration his country is expressing.


...I want to congratulate the prime minister, and say I agree with his reaction when he said he was not going to be stampeded into a call for arming the police in their day to day operations. ...  There will be lessons to be learned from this tragedy, and we will all have to reflect carefully on them. 

...I am sure the family of the murdered officer are not yet ready to have him used for point-scoring about guns, nor for political mileage about drugs nor crime, nor about policing, nor mental health, nor any of the other issues that will inevitably give us pause.


This is a time to give thanks to the men and women whom we ask to protect us, to share the grief of Len Snee&rsquo;s family and friends, and to express our strength as a community that comes together and makes our bonds stronger when we are confronted with tragedy.


...And we should be prepared to use the power of government to make our economy stronger. 

...It is perfectly reasonable to ask that in exchange for getting support from New Zealanders, the banks should, in return, support New Zealand in general and their own staff in particular. 

...What those MPs are really doing is using their parliamentary salaries and resources to bring in someone on a party list who has nothing to do with Mt Albert. ...  But she would bring in a new MP who virtually no one has heard of, and who might never have visited Mt Albert in his or her life.  

...Since there are three MPs contesting the seat, at least two of them have to lose and maybe all three will lose. 

...A simple bill that stopped a sitting MP standing in a by-election would force MPs to make a meaningful choice - if they really want to contest a seat, they should resign from parliament&nbsp; and contest it on the same basis as anyone else.&nbsp; ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>National is already causing super damage</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-06-03T12:13:00+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/e14250accff8b4c3f96afb2f40274c7c-13.html#unique-entry-id-13</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/e14250accff8b4c3f96afb2f40274c7c-13.html#unique-entry-id-13</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Increasing calls this week for changes to superannuation entitlements shows that national has already caused damage by cutting contributions to the Superannuation Fund, Wigram MP and Progressive leader Jim Anderton says.


&ldquo;The cancellation of contributions to the Super Fund means we will be less able to meet the cost of superannuation in the future.   This must mean either cuts to entitlement, increasing the age threshold, or substantial tax increases in the future.


&ldquo;Already commentators are queuing up to say the age of eligibility will have to increase, or the link to the average wage will be dropped - meaning&nbsp; superannuitants will be poorer relative to other New Zealanders.   Others are already calling for a return to some kind of surtax that actually penalises people for saving.


&ldquo;When New Zealanders hear this, they begin to make changes in their lifestyle immediately, because you cannot change your retirement plans at the last minute.   Families don&rsquo;t know how much more they have to put aside to pay for their retirement.   And the political consensus they rely on to make long term decisions begins to erode.


&ldquo;National has a dreadful track record on superannuation because it doesn&rsquo;t fundamentally believe in all New Zealanders having access to a secure retirement income at a level that enables retired New Zealanders to a reasonable standard of living.


&ldquo;New Zealanders have already lost some of their security because of National&rsquo;s decision to back track on meeting some of the future costs of superannuation.


&ldquo;Increased chatter about future cuts to super is all the proof that&rsquo;s needed that the damage is already being done,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Banks repatriating &#x2018;enormous amounts&#x2019;</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-07-01T12:10:51+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/a2b273f2f01ef01540254550d27374fb-12.html#unique-entry-id-12</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/a2b273f2f01ef01540254550d27374fb-12.html#unique-entry-id-12</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Banks repatriating &lsquo;enormous amounts&rsquo;


&nbsp;


New Zealand bank branches paid their overseas owners $11.7 billion in interest and profit last year.


&nbsp;


Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton told a Federated Farmers conference today that the situation poses a risk for the agriculture sector, which is facing a &lsquo;perfect storm&rsquo; of input price rises, threats to demand and now finance risks.


&nbsp;


Total bank lending to agriculture in April this year was $43.7 billion, or 13.8 per cent of the total lent to New Zealand.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;Two thirds of that is lending to the dairy industry - at a time when one estimate says Fonterra could be forced to cut its payout from the current $4.55 if our dollar stays over sixty US cents.   This would be very hard on some farming businesses that thought the last couple of years&rsquo; high prices would last longer.   If interest rates came down just one per cent, farmers would save $450 million,&rdquo; Jim Anderton said.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;The banking system has begun repatriating enormous amounts of New Zealand money.&rdquo;


&nbsp;


Remittances by banks in New Zealand to their overseas owners climbed from $3.8 billion in 2000, to 4.6 billion in 2004, and then began climbing steeply: $6 billion in 2005; $7.8 billion in 2006; $9.1 billion in 2007 and $11.7 billion last year.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;That&rsquo;s more than the entire GST revenue of New Zealand.   It is more than the entire education budget.   And in a single year it is far more than the entire proceeds of the asset sales programme that caused so much pain through the eighties and nineties.&rdquo;


&nbsp;


&ldquo;The huge remittances to banks are the result of the Australian banks funding our balance of payments deficit, now at sixteen billion dollars a year.   They are taking an enormous clip of the ticket for doing it.   We need to rely more on our own savings, instead of spending the savings of others.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;Interest rates are too high at a time when banks should be reducing them.   In a recession, while banks around the world have been under pressure, the big banks here have been smirking.   In the current environment, a lot of farms are facing a squeeze and they will struggle to meet the payments on their debt.&rdquo;]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Federated Farmers conference</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>Speeches</category><dc:date>2009-07-01T12:05:00+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/b559dcf00840c0cee1b09dc70de05570-11.html#unique-entry-id-11</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/b559dcf00840c0cee1b09dc70de05570-11.html#unique-entry-id-11</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[And it has been the backbone of our economy for most of our economic history because of our competitive advantage as a farming nation.


...	&bull;	Global awareness about environmental impacts and animal welfare are forcing change in our markets, and changing the business environment - as well as affecting the raw materials farming depends on, like climate and water.


...In my home town, Christchurch, some of the most innovative scientists in New Zealand are rivaled only by their contemporaries in cities like Palmerston North and Hamilton in their research contribution to New Zealand.


...At the start of this year, when the then new government opened its year in parliament with the Speech from the Throne, the word &lsquo;agriculture&rsquo; didn&rsquo;t even get a mention. ...  There is not much chance of developing the right policy for the agricultural sector, when farming isn&rsquo;t even being contemplated by the government.


...We can take some comfort that demand for food holds up better in a recession than demand for the cars of General Motors or Chrysler.


...And because the same reduced prices affect farmers everywhere, we can expect farmers in every country to redouble efforts to increase productivity and production, because this lowers costs per unit of output.


And since every farmer around the world is in the same situation, total production will increase, with prices falling and demand increasing only slowly.


...Persistent increases in the price of oil and gas would lead to higher fertilizer costs, so you get higher input costs and reduced demand.


...With some medium term exceptions, such as China&rsquo;s expansion and climate events, prices for agricultural exports have been under long-term downward pressure.   The strong expansion of China in recent years has helped to push up the prices of many raw materials - including some that farmers compete for, such as energy - while also increasing the price for agricultural products.


...At the same time that we are confronting the difficult environment for farm prices, agricultural finance is under stress as well.


...We have been using the savings of people in other countries instead of our own earnings or our own savings to pay for our lifestyle. 

...In the nineties we sent overseas about three billion dollars a year in profits and interest on loans extended to New Zealand banks. 

...Total bank lending to agriculture in April this year was $43.7 billion, or 13.8 per cent of the total lent to New Zealand.


...Two thirds of that is lending to the dairy industry - at a time when one estimate says Fonterra could be forced to cut its payout from the current $4.55 if our dollar stays over sixty US cents. 

...As Federated Farmers&rsquo; Lachlan McKenzie pointed out yesterday, every one per cent drop in interest you pay on that debt is worth $450 million. 

...In the current environment, a lot of farms are facing a squeeze and they will struggle to meet the payments on their debt.


...I&rsquo;ll tell you what I would do if I were still the agriculture minister: I would immediately convene a taskforce of the best and brightest in the sector to develop a short-, medium-, and long-term strategy to the deal with the issue.


...On top of all these advantages, it would help us to&nbsp;prosper in a world where consumers are becoming more demanding, and asking more searching questions about sustainability.


...This is partly about how we manage our emissions - but it&rsquo;s about a lot more than that as well.


...If New Zealand is going to achieve a higher price for our production than our competitors, then quality and a perceived advantage as being more environmentally responsible will be part of our national brand.


...Only yesterday we voted with the government on a new climate change bill, in a spirit of working in the best interests of all our industry sectors.


...There are developments on the table, such as Gordon Brown&rsquo;s proposal yesterday for a global development fund to help poor countries replace their emissions with cleaner alternatives.


...Any government of New Zealand is going to have to deal with emissions if we are a prudent country. 

...When you see the ugly factory farms in many parts of the world, and you compare their practices to the clean and open countryside we farm in New Zealand, you can see we have a huge opportunity.


...And so as the world cares more about the good of our planet, this should be an enormous opportunity for us.


...If you want to know what happens when change takes too long, ask the pork industry how its animal welfare standards are perceived by the public.


...Sustained, deep and ongoing investment in research and development in the industry is crucial - to identify cost-saving opportunities, and to identify new processes and new products that will extract more value.


...The NZ Fast Forward Fund was a commitment of seven hundred million dollars, which would earn interest and private sector partnerships and grow to be worth two billion dollars over its lifetime.


...There is no chance to earn interest and fund very large projects from an annual appropriation when science has to compete with every other demand on taxpayers&rsquo; purses.


...Investment in science and in research and development is the most significant commitment we can make across all of our agriculture, to determine our own future.


...And the agriculture sector is going to have to lead investment to keep us at the forefront in all these areas, because innovation is not going to come from anywhere else.


...When you compare stock market results to the performance of farms and agri-business, you get a clear picture of where the strength of our economy resides. 

...They would focus not on doing a better job, but on sending more of New Zealanders&rsquo; cash to overseas owners.


...The stock markets agenda is to lobby for more privatisation of our SOEs, rather than focusing on growing more successful New Zealand corporates that deliver returns to shareholders by doing well in global markets.


...They would build on genuine, science-led innovation and send the returns back to creative and entrepreneurial businesspeople in the many communities around New Zealand that are at the heart of our agriculture.


...Realistic that we need to deal with the massive debt problem, and the too-high interest rates we are paying to Australian banks. 

...I saw a comment from Don Nicholson that New Zealand's best exporters are found out there, in the fields and paddocks of New Zealand under rain, sun or snow working every single day, to bring wealth to New Zealand.   I agree with that, and it&rsquo;s up to the rest of us to match that commitment and to add our work to their success.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Why do Aussie banks charge us more than they charge Australians?</title><dc:creator>contact@progressive.org.nz</dc:creator><category>News Releases</category><dc:date>2009-07-07T12:04:00+12:00</dc:date><link>http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/557edf2f9d0ff517a1b62bede59c2277-10.html#unique-entry-id-10</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progressive.org.nz/latestnews/files/557edf2f9d0ff517a1b62bede59c2277-10.html#unique-entry-id-10</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Interest rates charged by the big Australian banks are not only higher than the rates charged by New Zealand&rsquo;s own bank - they&rsquo;re higher than the rates the Aussies charge themselves, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.


&nbsp;


&ldquo;Floating interest rates on mortgages are far 