Newsletters
10 New Year wishes for farming
24/01/10 11:40
Column for Canterbury Farmer
It’s looking like a happy new year for dairy farmers; global demand for Fonterra's milk powder has picked up and the payout for 2010 is forecast at $6.05 – the second highest since the co-op was created in 2001; much of the extra cash will go on paying off rural debt. But the primary sector needs the government to get much busier if any recovery is going to last.
So here are my ten top wishes for farming at the start of a new decade:
Water, water, water - stored
Niwa has just confirmed that the first decade of the new millennium has been the hottest on record in New Zealand. That means we’re going to have to get much smarter very soon at storing water.
At the moment the government is only spending a small fraction on water storage - just $700,000 per year through the Community Irrigation Fund. It’s promising to do more. But this issue has been left on the back burner for too long already.
More research, quickly
Unfortunately for farmers, David Carter said in parliament recently that he was ‘adhering to his own strict timetable’ in allocating funds to research and development. That appears to mean doing nothing in 2009 and not much more in 2010 - for example, there’s only $25 million available in the next financial year to fund projects in the new Primary Growth Partnership (this has to be compared to the $700 million allocated by the Labour/Progressive government to the Fast Forward Fund over a ten year lifetime).
I want to see the process speeded up in 2010.
Don’t sell-out our lean meat reputation
Stall-based farming where cows can be kept in boxes for 24 hours a day will undermine New Zealand’s reputation for free-range, healthy meat.
Environment Minister Nick Smith is trying to duck for cover in 2010 and make Environment Canterbury responsible for the final decision on whether to approve the application for this kind of factory farming in the Mackenzie Basin. The government should have the backbone to make the decision itself.
Less photo ops, more action.
2009 was the year of smiles and photo opportunities for the new National government, with John Key ending the year in Copenhagen, all smiles but no progress on climate change. I’d l like to see less photos in 2010, and more action.
Find new ways to tap global markets
Sales on Fonterra’s internet-based trading platform ‘globalDairyTrade’ have just reached $1.36 billion. This is a great use of new technology to tap overseas markets. I hope we see more new ideas like this in 2010.
Farmers deserve affordable dental care too
The cost of basic dental care is a barrier to many people with a cash-flow problem, including farmers. I would like to see a multi-party agreement that affordable dental care become accessible to everyone.
Get rid of the Brash Taskforce
In Don Brash’s entire 150-page ‘2025 Taskforce Report’, farming got just 24 words. Anyone who believes that farming is a ‘sunset industry’ should not be given tax-payers money. Get rid of the Brash Taskforce in 2010.
Change the fishing act
Any Fisheries Minister must have a clear mandate to protect our oceans as a priority, when fish stocks are low or a species is threatened with extinction.
At present, the Act is unclear and that needs to change.
Get the banks back into local communities
Westpac’s recent decision to return to local branches in small communities (closer to farmers) demonstrates the impact Kiwibank has had on banking in New Zealand. I predict the other big banks will follow this path ‘back to the future’ in 2010.
Don’t forget working New Zealanders
Working New Zealanders, including farmers deserve a break too. I want to see more bright ideas in 2010 from this government on how to create jobs, and more support for those with big new ideas on how to trade better with the world.
2010 will be a good year for all of us if we’ve got more jobs and a decent return for honest hard work.
It’s looking like a happy new year for dairy farmers; global demand for Fonterra's milk powder has picked up and the payout for 2010 is forecast at $6.05 – the second highest since the co-op was created in 2001; much of the extra cash will go on paying off rural debt. But the primary sector needs the government to get much busier if any recovery is going to last.
So here are my ten top wishes for farming at the start of a new decade:
Water, water, water - stored
Niwa has just confirmed that the first decade of the new millennium has been the hottest on record in New Zealand. That means we’re going to have to get much smarter very soon at storing water.
At the moment the government is only spending a small fraction on water storage - just $700,000 per year through the Community Irrigation Fund. It’s promising to do more. But this issue has been left on the back burner for too long already.
More research, quickly
Unfortunately for farmers, David Carter said in parliament recently that he was ‘adhering to his own strict timetable’ in allocating funds to research and development. That appears to mean doing nothing in 2009 and not much more in 2010 - for example, there’s only $25 million available in the next financial year to fund projects in the new Primary Growth Partnership (this has to be compared to the $700 million allocated by the Labour/Progressive government to the Fast Forward Fund over a ten year lifetime).
I want to see the process speeded up in 2010.
Don’t sell-out our lean meat reputation
Stall-based farming where cows can be kept in boxes for 24 hours a day will undermine New Zealand’s reputation for free-range, healthy meat.
Environment Minister Nick Smith is trying to duck for cover in 2010 and make Environment Canterbury responsible for the final decision on whether to approve the application for this kind of factory farming in the Mackenzie Basin. The government should have the backbone to make the decision itself.
Less photo ops, more action.
2009 was the year of smiles and photo opportunities for the new National government, with John Key ending the year in Copenhagen, all smiles but no progress on climate change. I’d l like to see less photos in 2010, and more action.
Find new ways to tap global markets
Sales on Fonterra’s internet-based trading platform ‘globalDairyTrade’ have just reached $1.36 billion. This is a great use of new technology to tap overseas markets. I hope we see more new ideas like this in 2010.
Farmers deserve affordable dental care too
The cost of basic dental care is a barrier to many people with a cash-flow problem, including farmers. I would like to see a multi-party agreement that affordable dental care become accessible to everyone.
Get rid of the Brash Taskforce
In Don Brash’s entire 150-page ‘2025 Taskforce Report’, farming got just 24 words. Anyone who believes that farming is a ‘sunset industry’ should not be given tax-payers money. Get rid of the Brash Taskforce in 2010.
Change the fishing act
Any Fisheries Minister must have a clear mandate to protect our oceans as a priority, when fish stocks are low or a species is threatened with extinction.
At present, the Act is unclear and that needs to change.
Get the banks back into local communities
Westpac’s recent decision to return to local branches in small communities (closer to farmers) demonstrates the impact Kiwibank has had on banking in New Zealand. I predict the other big banks will follow this path ‘back to the future’ in 2010.
Don’t forget working New Zealanders
Working New Zealanders, including farmers deserve a break too. I want to see more bright ideas in 2010 from this government on how to create jobs, and more support for those with big new ideas on how to trade better with the world.
2010 will be a good year for all of us if we’ve got more jobs and a decent return for honest hard work.
0 Comments
Jim's E-News, Christmas 2009
17/12/09 17:00
I’d like to wish a Happy Christmas and a good new year.
As we head off to spend holiday time with loved ones, and take a break from the pressures of daily life, this will be my last e-newsletter for 2009. It’s been a busy year, and an adjustment for us all to be in opposition. One bad day in government is worth a thousand good ones in opposition because in government you can make decisions which you know will help people and change lives.
Now we don’t have control of the purse strings. But we are making the most of our days in opposition to hold this government to account. It’s not only what the National-led government does that matters - it’s what it doesn’t do. And I don’t see any bright ideas or new initiatives which will create jobs, or support those with big new ideas to help us trade better with the world.
I see indecisive leadership from John Key, budget cuts, cuts to ACC, and looming problems with coalition partners like Act on the extreme right, and the Maori Party which seems hell-bent on being the party of Maori corporations and the affluent elite.
2010 will be a busy year. We will keep the pressure on this government to see more done for ordinary New Zealanders, Maori and Pakeha. We won’t let them get away with sitting back and hoping that ‘she’ll be right’ after a year of recession. New Zealand needs bigger ideas and more guts than a government which so far has come up with one idea; a national cycle pathway.
That’s not good enough after a year in government.
Enjoy the holiday season, and we’ll be back in 2010 ready to hit the ground running.
Here’s a summary of recent news items to give you an idea of what I’ve been doing in parliament and the electorate recently.
Feedback on dental care issues for New Zealanders
After the last e-news went out, I have received a range of communications, letters and emails on ways our dental system could be improved. It is generally agreed that cost is a major barrier for access to ongoing dental care for many people on fixed and low to middle incomes. Within this group, it is especially hard on the elderly, pregnant women, pre-school children and those with large families.
I am working on getting a reasonably accurate estimate of the total costs for New Zealand of the current dental system. This is quite complex but I have well informed contacts in the dental industry willing to help work on solutions.
Once dental care is free, then of course, there would be system changes. In the short-term check-ups would increase, followed by extra treatments. Over a period, the increase in check-ups and care of delayed treatments would result in improved dental health and lower treatments costs. Indeed, this is one of the reasons for making dental care free.
Correspondents are also agreed on the need for a parallel publicity campaign for people of all ages to have regular check-ups and cut down on the consumption of sugar (beverages, sweets, pastry) in favour of vegetables and fruit.
I will be in touch on the dental campaign early in 2010.
Copenhagen - New Zealand could be taking a lead, but it’s not
John Key looked indecisive when he couldn’t decide whether or not to go to Copenhagen. He only decided to go once a hundred other world leaders had bought their tickets. What kind of leadership is that?
It’s as if he accepts his presence is incapable of making any difference to whether or not the conference on climate change is a success or not. But it’s important to be there for the photo-op!
It’s that kind of non-committal attitude that is likely to see the Copenhagen talks end without agreement on clear targets for reducing emissions of carbon. John Key will have to take some responsibility for that.
As prime minister he’s making an art form out of not doing anything much (but always with a smile).
New Zealand could have been at the top table showing we were serious about climate change.
But this half-hearted participation at Copenhagen undermines our reputation for being leaders in this area and producing clean green food.
It didn’t help that John Key went to Copenhagen with a revised ETS (Emission Trading Scheme) which leaves the New Zealand taxpayer out of pocket. Big polluters aren’t paying, ordinary Kiwis are.
Someone has to pay for pollution; under National, Kiwi families will pay. The gap they have left for taxpayers to meet is $110 billion.
That’s $92,000 for each working Kiwi family.
North Shore Mayor gets unfair drubbing by Key’s cheer squad
Mayor Andrew Williams is being given an unfair drubbing by John Key and the media. He has been texting the Prime Minister about the Auckland Super City, and why not? John Key is a North Shore MP. So far, no-one has produced any evidence that these texts are abusive or that they were at an excessively late hour.
The media are showing their bias and are not listening to what Mayor Williams is saying. They are repeating the lines given to them by John Key on timing of text messages and that Mayor Williams messages have been ‘aggressive’. They are ignoring William’s criticisms of the National-ACT legislation for Auckland’s new Super City.
Where are the hard questions to the North Shore MPs, including John Key, on the issues that Andrew Williams wants answers to and is entitled to as Mayor of the North Shore? The media should be following up on that.
Andrew Williams has produced his phone records but it makes no difference. John Key is not being asked to prove his allegations about Williams. That doesn’t seem fair to me.
Andrew Williams is an outspoken mayor – but then all good mayors are outspoken. That’s their job!
He’s just trying to stop unacceptable and unpopular legislation as it’s rushed through the House before people have a chance to understand the real implications.
It is sad to see the very good relations that the Labour-Progressive government had with local government during the past nine years degenerate so quickly – but it is happening in so many areas so fast, that I guess it is par for the course and I predict we will see more of it in 2010.
Intensive dairy farming in the MacKenzie basin - our reputation is at risk
Reputation is everything. Copenhagen hasn’t helped. Neither has the application from three companies in the MacKenzie Basin a few weeks ago to use stall-based farming. This is the kind of farming where cows can be kept in boxes for 24 hours a day, eight months of the year.
When I was Minister of Agriculture in the last Labour-Progressive government, I went to Korea and Japan to advocate for our pastoral farming techniques. There was huge interest in our ability to produce lean meat that was healthier than the high fat content meat produced in Japan and Korea.
Many in those countries know their own meat is unhealthy and there was genuine interest in our approach to natural animal husbandry. There was an acknowledgement that New Zealand creates a high quality healthy product, compared to their own meat.
I saw grain-fed cows in stalls. They were some of the fattest cows I have ever seen. Some of them died of heart attacks. They were so fat, of course, because they get no exercise.
It doesn’t make any sense to casually throw away our clean, free-range, lean meat reputation for the sake of keeping cows in stalls on a few farms in the MacKenzie Basin. It only takes a few negative stories to reach international consumers, and our reputation is at risk.
Farming is a sunset industry? Yeah right....
You can understand why farmers are worried about the future. Stall-based farming is a silly idea. Farmers need good ideas. New pastures, crops, animal species and techniques won't invent themselves, which is why we need a government prepared to invest in research and development.
We currently spend around 1.2 percent of GDP on Research & Development. Our peers like Denmark, however, invest three percent.
When I was Minister of Agriculture in the Labour-Progressive government, I put millions of dollars into research and development in the primary sector.
Pioneering cleaner more cost-effective ways of farming makes sense for our farming sector and for the environment.
Unfortunately within the first few weeks of government John Key and the National party got rid of the Fast Forward Fund and $700 million set aside for research and development. Since then not one cent of the promised funding has been spent on research and innovation.
I’ll be keeping the pressure on this government in 2010 to put funds into research and development because if we don’t, New Zealand will miss out. The global population is growing, and food production will continue to be a huge industry. We can’t afford not to be a leader in this market.
Brash hardly mentions farming in his 2025 Report
In Don Brash’s entire 150-page 2025 Taskforce Report, farming got just 24 words.
Back in the eighties, the late David Lange said, "Farming is a sunset industry.” Looks like Don Brash agrees. Why is the National-led government letting Don Brash loose on the economy? Because of a coalition deal with Act.
The bad news is that Don Brash is going to keep getting paid for another few years to come up with yet more destructive and back to the future ideas.
Twenty years ago, politicians in both main parties thought that instead of growing export products, we were going to be the Switzerland of the South Pacific - an economy based on banking, earning a lavish income from financial services.
We can get a glimpse of what might have been by taking a look at Iceland now - a small, isolated country, with a strong primary industry that set out to become a global financial capital. Imports of beautiful luxury cars boomed.
And when those industries all fell over in the recession, which part of the Icelandic economy is still trundling along today? What’s left of its fishing industry.
All we need to do, Dr Brash says, is follow the same prescription of deregulation, speculation and monetary irresponsibility that wrecked Iceland.
There are ministers in this government who agree with that.
But instead of going back to the failed policies of the past, there are some less disruptive things we can try.
First, we need deeper pools of capital, so that each worker is more productive. Workers in capital intensive jobs earn much more. Every Australian job is backed by 1.2 times as much capital as the average job in developed countries. Every job in New Zealand has just 0.7 per cent as much capital.
Second, we need more science, research and innovation.
But after this government axed the Fast Forward Fund which we had set up with $700 million set aside for research and development, it has spent a year doing nothing except creating another body called the ‘Primary Growth Partnership’. The PGP hasn’t allocated a single cent to research and development yet, and it doesn’t appear that any will be invested in the near future.
The Minister of Agriculture, David Carter said in parliament recently that he was ‘adhering to his own strict timetable’ for research and development funding, which appears to be to do nothing and spend nothing on primary sector research and development
We need a culture change to tackle binge drinking
Some people get very defensive when you talk about the need to change our attitudes to binge drinking. Columnist Karl du Fresne accused me and Professor Doug Sellman of being alarmist and presumably making him feel bad about drinking.
But his attack on us was a misguided reaction to what is a well-informed attempt to do something about binge drinking in New Zealand.
His personal drinking habits aren’t under attack and no-one is counting how many glasses of wine he consumes each day. I believe that three glasses of wine every day over many years constitutes heavy drinking. So does the World Health Organisation. Karl doesn’t think so, and that’s his choice.
For the record the 700,000 heavy drinkers Professor Doug Sellman and I referred to represent 25% of the New Zealand population who drink and are over 16 years old, not a percentage of the total population.
It’s ironic that Mr du Fresne’s column came out almost the same week that 300 leaders of the medical profession in New Zealand issued a statement against our heavy drinking culture, and the New Zealand and Australian police launched a massive police operation against alcohol-fuelled crime.
The New Zealand police commissioner Howard Broad said "While legislation and enforcement are key, changing the drinking culture is crucial.” We need a culture change, especially as we head into the holiday season, and commentators like Karl du Fresne have to decide whether they want to help or hinder.
Kiwibank leads big banks back to local services
It’s ironic. Kiwibank was created in part as a response to the monopoly behaviour of the big banks who were abandoning small communities throughout New Zealand. Today, those banks have seen the error of their ways and are returning to a small town near you.
Westpac’s decision to return to boutique style branches in small communities so they can get closer to where customers live, demonstrates the impact Kiwibank has had on banking in New Zealand.
Westpac chief executive George Frazis now says that it was a mistake for his bank to abandon local branches in the 1990s.
Kiwibank reversed this trend by setting up regional branches and bank outlets so that local customers had access to bank services where ever they lived. Westpac now plans to return to a local branch system.
Today, Kiwibank has by far the biggest network of any bank in New Zealand, with more than three hundred branches (at least one hundred more than any other bank) and 650,000 customers. It operates in nearly forty communities where it is the only bank service available.
We knew at the time that it was not only the right thing to do, but that it made business sense to keep banking services close to where people live.
It’s taken Westpac more than ten years to realise this, but at least they deserve credit for reversing the failed policies of the 1990s, and returning to local banking.
It’s a shame that given this re-engagement with the public of New Zealand, Westpac didn’t show up at the Parliamentary Banking Inquiry recently. We would have welcomed their views. Kiwibank was the only bank that fronted.
It’s only a matter of time now before the other banks follow Kiwibank and return to local banking.
As we head off to spend holiday time with loved ones, and take a break from the pressures of daily life, this will be my last e-newsletter for 2009. It’s been a busy year, and an adjustment for us all to be in opposition. One bad day in government is worth a thousand good ones in opposition because in government you can make decisions which you know will help people and change lives.
Now we don’t have control of the purse strings. But we are making the most of our days in opposition to hold this government to account. It’s not only what the National-led government does that matters - it’s what it doesn’t do. And I don’t see any bright ideas or new initiatives which will create jobs, or support those with big new ideas to help us trade better with the world.
I see indecisive leadership from John Key, budget cuts, cuts to ACC, and looming problems with coalition partners like Act on the extreme right, and the Maori Party which seems hell-bent on being the party of Maori corporations and the affluent elite.
2010 will be a busy year. We will keep the pressure on this government to see more done for ordinary New Zealanders, Maori and Pakeha. We won’t let them get away with sitting back and hoping that ‘she’ll be right’ after a year of recession. New Zealand needs bigger ideas and more guts than a government which so far has come up with one idea; a national cycle pathway.
That’s not good enough after a year in government.
Enjoy the holiday season, and we’ll be back in 2010 ready to hit the ground running.
Here’s a summary of recent news items to give you an idea of what I’ve been doing in parliament and the electorate recently.
Feedback on dental care issues for New Zealanders
After the last e-news went out, I have received a range of communications, letters and emails on ways our dental system could be improved. It is generally agreed that cost is a major barrier for access to ongoing dental care for many people on fixed and low to middle incomes. Within this group, it is especially hard on the elderly, pregnant women, pre-school children and those with large families.
I am working on getting a reasonably accurate estimate of the total costs for New Zealand of the current dental system. This is quite complex but I have well informed contacts in the dental industry willing to help work on solutions.
Once dental care is free, then of course, there would be system changes. In the short-term check-ups would increase, followed by extra treatments. Over a period, the increase in check-ups and care of delayed treatments would result in improved dental health and lower treatments costs. Indeed, this is one of the reasons for making dental care free.
Correspondents are also agreed on the need for a parallel publicity campaign for people of all ages to have regular check-ups and cut down on the consumption of sugar (beverages, sweets, pastry) in favour of vegetables and fruit.
I will be in touch on the dental campaign early in 2010.
Copenhagen - New Zealand could be taking a lead, but it’s not
John Key looked indecisive when he couldn’t decide whether or not to go to Copenhagen. He only decided to go once a hundred other world leaders had bought their tickets. What kind of leadership is that?
It’s as if he accepts his presence is incapable of making any difference to whether or not the conference on climate change is a success or not. But it’s important to be there for the photo-op!
It’s that kind of non-committal attitude that is likely to see the Copenhagen talks end without agreement on clear targets for reducing emissions of carbon. John Key will have to take some responsibility for that.
As prime minister he’s making an art form out of not doing anything much (but always with a smile).
New Zealand could have been at the top table showing we were serious about climate change.
But this half-hearted participation at Copenhagen undermines our reputation for being leaders in this area and producing clean green food.
It didn’t help that John Key went to Copenhagen with a revised ETS (Emission Trading Scheme) which leaves the New Zealand taxpayer out of pocket. Big polluters aren’t paying, ordinary Kiwis are.
Someone has to pay for pollution; under National, Kiwi families will pay. The gap they have left for taxpayers to meet is $110 billion.
That’s $92,000 for each working Kiwi family.
North Shore Mayor gets unfair drubbing by Key’s cheer squad
Mayor Andrew Williams is being given an unfair drubbing by John Key and the media. He has been texting the Prime Minister about the Auckland Super City, and why not? John Key is a North Shore MP. So far, no-one has produced any evidence that these texts are abusive or that they were at an excessively late hour.
The media are showing their bias and are not listening to what Mayor Williams is saying. They are repeating the lines given to them by John Key on timing of text messages and that Mayor Williams messages have been ‘aggressive’. They are ignoring William’s criticisms of the National-ACT legislation for Auckland’s new Super City.
Where are the hard questions to the North Shore MPs, including John Key, on the issues that Andrew Williams wants answers to and is entitled to as Mayor of the North Shore? The media should be following up on that.
Andrew Williams has produced his phone records but it makes no difference. John Key is not being asked to prove his allegations about Williams. That doesn’t seem fair to me.
Andrew Williams is an outspoken mayor – but then all good mayors are outspoken. That’s their job!
He’s just trying to stop unacceptable and unpopular legislation as it’s rushed through the House before people have a chance to understand the real implications.
It is sad to see the very good relations that the Labour-Progressive government had with local government during the past nine years degenerate so quickly – but it is happening in so many areas so fast, that I guess it is par for the course and I predict we will see more of it in 2010.
Intensive dairy farming in the MacKenzie basin - our reputation is at risk
Reputation is everything. Copenhagen hasn’t helped. Neither has the application from three companies in the MacKenzie Basin a few weeks ago to use stall-based farming. This is the kind of farming where cows can be kept in boxes for 24 hours a day, eight months of the year.
When I was Minister of Agriculture in the last Labour-Progressive government, I went to Korea and Japan to advocate for our pastoral farming techniques. There was huge interest in our ability to produce lean meat that was healthier than the high fat content meat produced in Japan and Korea.
Many in those countries know their own meat is unhealthy and there was genuine interest in our approach to natural animal husbandry. There was an acknowledgement that New Zealand creates a high quality healthy product, compared to their own meat.
I saw grain-fed cows in stalls. They were some of the fattest cows I have ever seen. Some of them died of heart attacks. They were so fat, of course, because they get no exercise.
It doesn’t make any sense to casually throw away our clean, free-range, lean meat reputation for the sake of keeping cows in stalls on a few farms in the MacKenzie Basin. It only takes a few negative stories to reach international consumers, and our reputation is at risk.
Farming is a sunset industry? Yeah right....
You can understand why farmers are worried about the future. Stall-based farming is a silly idea. Farmers need good ideas. New pastures, crops, animal species and techniques won't invent themselves, which is why we need a government prepared to invest in research and development.
We currently spend around 1.2 percent of GDP on Research & Development. Our peers like Denmark, however, invest three percent.
When I was Minister of Agriculture in the Labour-Progressive government, I put millions of dollars into research and development in the primary sector.
Pioneering cleaner more cost-effective ways of farming makes sense for our farming sector and for the environment.
Unfortunately within the first few weeks of government John Key and the National party got rid of the Fast Forward Fund and $700 million set aside for research and development. Since then not one cent of the promised funding has been spent on research and innovation.
I’ll be keeping the pressure on this government in 2010 to put funds into research and development because if we don’t, New Zealand will miss out. The global population is growing, and food production will continue to be a huge industry. We can’t afford not to be a leader in this market.
Brash hardly mentions farming in his 2025 Report
In Don Brash’s entire 150-page 2025 Taskforce Report, farming got just 24 words.
Back in the eighties, the late David Lange said, "Farming is a sunset industry.” Looks like Don Brash agrees. Why is the National-led government letting Don Brash loose on the economy? Because of a coalition deal with Act.
The bad news is that Don Brash is going to keep getting paid for another few years to come up with yet more destructive and back to the future ideas.
Twenty years ago, politicians in both main parties thought that instead of growing export products, we were going to be the Switzerland of the South Pacific - an economy based on banking, earning a lavish income from financial services.
We can get a glimpse of what might have been by taking a look at Iceland now - a small, isolated country, with a strong primary industry that set out to become a global financial capital. Imports of beautiful luxury cars boomed.
And when those industries all fell over in the recession, which part of the Icelandic economy is still trundling along today? What’s left of its fishing industry.
All we need to do, Dr Brash says, is follow the same prescription of deregulation, speculation and monetary irresponsibility that wrecked Iceland.
There are ministers in this government who agree with that.
But instead of going back to the failed policies of the past, there are some less disruptive things we can try.
First, we need deeper pools of capital, so that each worker is more productive. Workers in capital intensive jobs earn much more. Every Australian job is backed by 1.2 times as much capital as the average job in developed countries. Every job in New Zealand has just 0.7 per cent as much capital.
Second, we need more science, research and innovation.
But after this government axed the Fast Forward Fund which we had set up with $700 million set aside for research and development, it has spent a year doing nothing except creating another body called the ‘Primary Growth Partnership’. The PGP hasn’t allocated a single cent to research and development yet, and it doesn’t appear that any will be invested in the near future.
The Minister of Agriculture, David Carter said in parliament recently that he was ‘adhering to his own strict timetable’ for research and development funding, which appears to be to do nothing and spend nothing on primary sector research and development
We need a culture change to tackle binge drinking
Some people get very defensive when you talk about the need to change our attitudes to binge drinking. Columnist Karl du Fresne accused me and Professor Doug Sellman of being alarmist and presumably making him feel bad about drinking.
But his attack on us was a misguided reaction to what is a well-informed attempt to do something about binge drinking in New Zealand.
His personal drinking habits aren’t under attack and no-one is counting how many glasses of wine he consumes each day. I believe that three glasses of wine every day over many years constitutes heavy drinking. So does the World Health Organisation. Karl doesn’t think so, and that’s his choice.
For the record the 700,000 heavy drinkers Professor Doug Sellman and I referred to represent 25% of the New Zealand population who drink and are over 16 years old, not a percentage of the total population.
It’s ironic that Mr du Fresne’s column came out almost the same week that 300 leaders of the medical profession in New Zealand issued a statement against our heavy drinking culture, and the New Zealand and Australian police launched a massive police operation against alcohol-fuelled crime.
The New Zealand police commissioner Howard Broad said "While legislation and enforcement are key, changing the drinking culture is crucial.” We need a culture change, especially as we head into the holiday season, and commentators like Karl du Fresne have to decide whether they want to help or hinder.
Kiwibank leads big banks back to local services
It’s ironic. Kiwibank was created in part as a response to the monopoly behaviour of the big banks who were abandoning small communities throughout New Zealand. Today, those banks have seen the error of their ways and are returning to a small town near you.
Westpac’s decision to return to boutique style branches in small communities so they can get closer to where customers live, demonstrates the impact Kiwibank has had on banking in New Zealand.
Westpac chief executive George Frazis now says that it was a mistake for his bank to abandon local branches in the 1990s.
Kiwibank reversed this trend by setting up regional branches and bank outlets so that local customers had access to bank services where ever they lived. Westpac now plans to return to a local branch system.
Today, Kiwibank has by far the biggest network of any bank in New Zealand, with more than three hundred branches (at least one hundred more than any other bank) and 650,000 customers. It operates in nearly forty communities where it is the only bank service available.
We knew at the time that it was not only the right thing to do, but that it made business sense to keep banking services close to where people live.
It’s taken Westpac more than ten years to realise this, but at least they deserve credit for reversing the failed policies of the 1990s, and returning to local banking.
It’s a shame that given this re-engagement with the public of New Zealand, Westpac didn’t show up at the Parliamentary Banking Inquiry recently. We would have welcomed their views. Kiwibank was the only bank that fronted.
It’s only a matter of time now before the other banks follow Kiwibank and return to local banking.
Jim's E-News, November 2009
16/11/09 15:00
DENTAL CARE ISSUES FOR NEW ZEALANDERS
I am involving myself in a project to raise the profile of, and extend the services for, dental treatment in New Zealand.
The cost of dental treatment is a significant barrier to lifetime dental care and as a result, neglected teeth and gums are a hidden but critical problem for New Zealand’s healthcare system which needs to be urgently addressed.
It is my strongly held view that a high quality, accessible and affordable dental system should be part of the general medical health system in New Zealand. This would provide a public-private partnership which would enable all of our citizens from their earliest years right through to their last, to have their teeth cared for by qualified dental professionals at an affordable cost.
From one end of New Zealand to the other I have been made aware of the importance of this issue to a large number of our citizens, young and old, and it is well beyond time when action rather than words was seen and heard to be taking place.
I would be grateful to hear from you by email, fax or letter about your thoughts on this vital issue.
Contact me here.
ACC IS THE BEST IN THE WORLD - BIKERS RALLY, CHRISTCHURCH
Let’s be clear about one thing; New Zealand has the best accident compensation scheme in the world. It’s not broken, so why try and fix it; and no matter what Nick Smith tries to tell you - it’s not broke. It has reserves of money. It has over $11 billion of reserves, and last year it collected $1 billion more in levies, than it spent on claims.
Bikers are being unfairly targeted – Nick Smith wants them to pay three times as much in ACC levies as they are paying today.
Today motorcyclists are paying about $252. Tomorrow they will be paying $735.
This is outrageous. And it is completely unnecessary - because ACC can pay its bills without making them pay three times as much.
ACC was set up as a no-fault system to be run by a government-owned company so that everyone who has an accident gets looked after, and at a lower cost than overseas.
It was never intended to penalise certain groups that it saw as ‘high risk’ - otherwise where do you stop? If its bikers today, why not old people who are more likely to fall over than anyone else; why not 6 year boys who play rugby and are more likely to get hurt than kids playing chess?
The point of the scheme was to avoid this situation, and draw on the overall resources of the whole community. So we all pay a bit, and no one is disadvantaged. Every one avoids the very large lawyers’ bills and insurance company profits that have to be paid under a private insurance system.
We gave up the right to sue under this system, in return for the fair treatment of injured people.
The National-led government is playing dirty with the figures. It’s insisting that all imagined accidents in the future should be paid right now by people like the bike riders. But this wasn’t what ACC was set up to do. It was always intended to be a ‘pay as you go’ scheme.
That means the levies received in any one year, pay for the accidents in that year. And that system has been working fine - in fact ACC has even managed to put aside significant resources.
The real agenda here, is to set up ACC for a gradual return to a privately run insurance scheme. Scaremongering about costs is just the Trojan horse. And inside the Trojan horse is a bunch of lawyers and foreign insurance companies, licking their lips and looking forward to getting their hands on your levies!
I am entirely opposed to any private scheme. And I totally reject the National government’s attempt to make bikers pay three times as much.
URGENT INQUIRY INTO MONETARY POLICY NOW
We should put party politics aside and come up with a new approach to monetary policy which supports people in New Zealand who produce tradeable goods, rather than those who speculate on property and take the profits off-shore.
The National-led government and its coalition partners refused to take part in the inquiry, with the PM cynically calling it a ‘stunt’ from the opposition parties.
I don’t believe in the “nothing we can do” stance of this government. We could be looking to remove the incentives for those buying investment properties. Banks need to be encouraged to lend to businesses; and we need to review our tax system which at the moment encourages unproductive property investment and discourages investment in the productive tradeable export goods sector.
We need to look at regulating the banking sector so that ordinary New Zealanders don’t pay (in interest rates or hidden bank fees) while the Australian-owned banks make excessive profits.
With the National-led government complacently sitting on the sidelines, New Zealanders will be the losers for it.
To download the banking inquiry report, go here, or get in touch with my office.
BANKING INQUIRY BACKGROUNDER AND FINDINGS
The ‘big four’ Australian banks control nearly 90% of banking assets in New Zealand. The three New Zealand owned banks have 4% of banking assets.
Have the Banks made a profit?
The combined profits of the ‘big four’ Australian owned banks now exceed the combined profits of all other companies listed on the stock exchange NZX 50 series.
In 2008 Banks earned $3.26 billion; the earnings of the NZX 50 were $2.89 billion.
Did the Banks pass on the cut to the Official Cash Rate (OCR)?
The Reserve Bank cut the OCR from its high of 8.25 % in mid 2008, to only 2.5% today.
But the overseas owned banks reduced interest rates by less than the fall in the OCR. 1% margin in interest rates was not passed on to bank customers. 1% extra interest added $787 million to costs for New Zealand businesses; and 1% higher margin on loans added $460 million to the net interest costs to the farming sector.
The biggest cost was in the housing sector: 1% extra interest cost added over $1.6 billion to mortgage repayments.
New Zealand businesses are suffering
In 2009 bank lending for home loans rose about $3.2 billion (to $164.8 billion). Meanwhile business lending fell by about $3 billion (to $78 billion.)
The effects on the farming sector have been negative
Federated Farmers interest rates survey in June 2009 found that farm business overdraft interest rates had fallen an average of 2.68 % since December 2008. Meanwhile the OCR was cut by 4%.
Ordinary New Zealanders had problems paying their mortgages
In five years, Budgeting and Family Support Services has only seen one family lose their house in a mortgage sale. But in the first three months on 2009, fifteen families had already lost their home.
Have the Banks contributed to overseas debt and a housing bubble?
In the last ten years, personal lending has almost doubled, from $60 billion to $105 billion; most of the lending has been for housing.
Home loans now make up 55% of bank lending, up from 35% ten years ago. The banks borrowed more money to fund property price increases which contributed to a rise in overseas debt.
Between 2003 and 2009 net overseas liabilities rose from $100.6 billion to $176.3 billion; that’s a rise from 76.8% of GDP to 98%.
What have the banks got to do with our volatile exchange rate?
High overseas borrowing has impacted on the exchange rate which is subject to high volatility. The export sector makes up roughly 30% of GDP - about $40 billion per year but suffers the most from currency instability which means uncertain returns.
PROGRESSIVE SUBMISSION ON THE LAW COMMISSION PAPER: ‘ALCOHOL IN OUR LIVES’ I am under no illusion about the challenge involved if we are to seriously reduce the harm caused by alcohol. But doing nothing is not an option.
Alcohol is by far the most damaging drug in the country. It causes between $2-$3 billion dollars worth of economic and social harm each year. The personal cost to families and loved ones is incalculable. How can we measure the cost of a family tragedy?
One of the most damaging drugs we face right now is not even illegal; our kids can buy it in the local dairy; they play sports and have it promoted to them all the time; they see it on TV, on billboards and hear about it on the radio.
The abuse of alcohol amongst our young people is on the rise and it’s destroying lives.
I have been working with others like Dr Doug Sellman of the Otago School of Medicine to raise awareness of the damage that alcohol is causing. We have a unique opportunity right now to do something, through the Law Commission’s review of the legislation to do with the drinking age, the availability and the advertising of alcohol.
Did you know that every advertisement seen by a young person increases the number of drinks they consume by 1%. They become customers for life. And people like you end up picking up the pieces.
Currently, $200,000 per day is spent on marketing and advertising alcohol. About half the marketing is spent on sponsorship.
I welcome the Law Commission’s issues paper which gives New Zealanders a unique opportunity to reform the legal framework in which alcohol is sold, advertised and promoted.
It gives us a chance today to do more to protect New Zealanders from the harm caused by the abuse of alcohol.
The Progressive Party submission calls on the Law Commission to do more in its final recommendations to guide law makers on how to further curb alcohol advertising, particularly to the most vulnerable New Zealanders - the young. I would like to see more options put forward by the Law Commission on how we can greatly reduce the availability of alcohol to young people. I have also given my opinions and made comments on every option put forward in the Law Commission’s paper, ‘Alcohol in our Lives’.
For the full submission: go here.
For my speech to the National CAYAD hui, go here.
"Ten things the alcohol industry won't tell you about alcohol"
Alcohol Action are holding their last two last meetings this week with presenter Dr. Doug Sellman.
The meetings are at: CHRISTCHURCH: Art Gallery Theatre, Tuesday 17th November, 7.30-9pm PORIRUA: Helen Smith Community Room, Wednesday 18th November, 7.30-9pm
There is still time to get in a late submissions to the Law Commission.
Use milk payout to farmers to strengthen industry
It's important that the increase in Fonterra's payout to farmers is used to strengthen the industry, and not squandered.
The increased pay out is very timely for a large number of farmers who have been struggling with higher input prices and enormous costs for financing. Interest rates for many farmers have not come down.
But the risk is that the higher payout will lead to higher farm valuations and in turn to yet more farm indebtedness. That's what happened too often when the milk payout reached $7 a kilo. When the price then dropped, it left a lot of farmers under mortgage stress.
Banks should be careful about getting into the same position of lending against valuations based on favourable milk payouts.
The payout shows New Zealand is well positioned as a food producer to continue to earn a living when global conditions are less than favourable.
When payouts increase as much as this one has, the extra earnings need to be used to strengthen the industry, for example by stronger investment in research and development, and strenthening balance sheets to reduce our exposure to rapacious overseas owned banks.
A generation of kids will be lost – New Zealand must do more
Launch of the Mutima Project in Christchurch
16,000 children are dying from hunger every day because food aid is now at its lowest level in twenty years, but the National government remains determined not to use our aid for ‘poverty reduction.
The head of the United Nation’s World Food Programme recently announced that tens of millions of the world’s poor will have their food rations cut or cancelled in the next few weeks because some OECD countries have slashed aid after the financial crisis.
The Mutima project is a volunteer organisation and will send a team of cardiac surgeons to Zambia to perform life-saving heart surgery on young adults.
I commend them for the strength of their personal commitment and their determination to serve. We are a stronger and more caring community because of people like these Christchurch surgeons. Because of them, a hundred young Zambians will have a second chance at life.
About 60% of the Zambian population are living on less than a $1 per day.
But where is the urgency from the National government to save a generation of children who will die from starvation if the world does nothing?
The National government has recently announced that it will abolish the goal of ‘poverty reduction’ for our aid, and replace it with a goal of ‘economic development’.
I am a strong champion of economic development but you can’t do much business development if people don’t have enough to eat or clean water to drink.
I want to see the National government do more about bad governance and corruption in some of the poorest countries and see New Zealand get behind a new international Natural Resource Charter which sets out ‘best practice’ in countries with natural resources like oil (or copper in Zambia), so proceeds of those resources go to the poorest people and don’t end up in the pockets of the corrupt.
For the speech, go here.
Who owns the ASB? Not us.
The ASB has been an Australian owned bank for the last two decades, and it is misleading the public when it pretends to be a ‘Kiwi Bank’.
The ABS is running promotional ads claiming ‘We’ve been a Kiwi Bank since 1847’.
The truth is we don’t really know who owns the ASB. We know it is owned 100% by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA), but who owns the Commonwealth Bank?
It used to be owned by the Federal Government of Australia but it was privatised in stages beginning in 1991.
Almost half of the current owners of the Commonwealth Bank are ‘nominee’ companies.
That means their identities are hidden behind other well-known companies, like the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC).
We don’t really know who owns ASB. All we know for sure is that New Zealand doesn’t.
For the release, go here.
An ‘unfortunate arrangement’
The Auditor General’s findings about Bill English’s accommodation arrangements go significantly further than findings that caused Marion Hobbs and Phillida Bunkle to stand down from ministerial office in 2001. This makes Mr English’s position as finance minister very difficult. I have been in the same position as Mr Key, in having to make a decision on the future of the Minister. A precedent for the right thing to do has been set.
I wrote to the Auditor-General saying Mr English’ arrangements needed scrutiny. The report finds Mr English’s arrangements were not within the rules. The Auditor General’s report states:
The result was that the Crown was renting a property for Mr English from a trust in which he had an interest, and the arrangement was explicitly based on a view that he did not have an interest. Clearly, this was unfortunate.
The report discloses Mr English went to some lengths to arrange his affairs around the accommodation allowance entitlement. That is not a good look for a Minister of Finance.
The Auditor-General’s advice does not even mention other issues that the Prime Minister still needs to consider: that Mr English was giving his Wellington address as his home for the purpose of being a director of a company (incidentally, the company that owns his Dipton investment), but claiming to live in Dipton for the purpose of receiving an accommodation allowance.
A prudent minister might have noticed the contradiction between those two claims.
I have always welcomed the idea of Mr English having his family with him in Wellington. That is not the issue. The question is whether he was right to claim entitlements for doing so. It would not have been in any way objectionable if Mr English had lived in Wellington with his family and claimed an out of town allowance for his occasional trips to Dipton.
For the release, go here.
I am involving myself in a project to raise the profile of, and extend the services for, dental treatment in New Zealand.
The cost of dental treatment is a significant barrier to lifetime dental care and as a result, neglected teeth and gums are a hidden but critical problem for New Zealand’s healthcare system which needs to be urgently addressed.
It is my strongly held view that a high quality, accessible and affordable dental system should be part of the general medical health system in New Zealand. This would provide a public-private partnership which would enable all of our citizens from their earliest years right through to their last, to have their teeth cared for by qualified dental professionals at an affordable cost.
From one end of New Zealand to the other I have been made aware of the importance of this issue to a large number of our citizens, young and old, and it is well beyond time when action rather than words was seen and heard to be taking place.
I would be grateful to hear from you by email, fax or letter about your thoughts on this vital issue.
Contact me here.
ACC IS THE BEST IN THE WORLD - BIKERS RALLY, CHRISTCHURCH
Let’s be clear about one thing; New Zealand has the best accident compensation scheme in the world. It’s not broken, so why try and fix it; and no matter what Nick Smith tries to tell you - it’s not broke. It has reserves of money. It has over $11 billion of reserves, and last year it collected $1 billion more in levies, than it spent on claims.
Bikers are being unfairly targeted – Nick Smith wants them to pay three times as much in ACC levies as they are paying today.
Today motorcyclists are paying about $252. Tomorrow they will be paying $735.
This is outrageous. And it is completely unnecessary - because ACC can pay its bills without making them pay three times as much.
ACC was set up as a no-fault system to be run by a government-owned company so that everyone who has an accident gets looked after, and at a lower cost than overseas.
It was never intended to penalise certain groups that it saw as ‘high risk’ - otherwise where do you stop? If its bikers today, why not old people who are more likely to fall over than anyone else; why not 6 year boys who play rugby and are more likely to get hurt than kids playing chess?
The point of the scheme was to avoid this situation, and draw on the overall resources of the whole community. So we all pay a bit, and no one is disadvantaged. Every one avoids the very large lawyers’ bills and insurance company profits that have to be paid under a private insurance system.
We gave up the right to sue under this system, in return for the fair treatment of injured people.
The National-led government is playing dirty with the figures. It’s insisting that all imagined accidents in the future should be paid right now by people like the bike riders. But this wasn’t what ACC was set up to do. It was always intended to be a ‘pay as you go’ scheme.
That means the levies received in any one year, pay for the accidents in that year. And that system has been working fine - in fact ACC has even managed to put aside significant resources.
The real agenda here, is to set up ACC for a gradual return to a privately run insurance scheme. Scaremongering about costs is just the Trojan horse. And inside the Trojan horse is a bunch of lawyers and foreign insurance companies, licking their lips and looking forward to getting their hands on your levies!
I am entirely opposed to any private scheme. And I totally reject the National government’s attempt to make bikers pay three times as much.
URGENT INQUIRY INTO MONETARY POLICY NOW
We should put party politics aside and come up with a new approach to monetary policy which supports people in New Zealand who produce tradeable goods, rather than those who speculate on property and take the profits off-shore.
The National-led government and its coalition partners refused to take part in the inquiry, with the PM cynically calling it a ‘stunt’ from the opposition parties.
I don’t believe in the “nothing we can do” stance of this government. We could be looking to remove the incentives for those buying investment properties. Banks need to be encouraged to lend to businesses; and we need to review our tax system which at the moment encourages unproductive property investment and discourages investment in the productive tradeable export goods sector.
We need to look at regulating the banking sector so that ordinary New Zealanders don’t pay (in interest rates or hidden bank fees) while the Australian-owned banks make excessive profits.
With the National-led government complacently sitting on the sidelines, New Zealanders will be the losers for it.
To download the banking inquiry report, go here, or get in touch with my office.
BANKING INQUIRY BACKGROUNDER AND FINDINGS
The ‘big four’ Australian banks control nearly 90% of banking assets in New Zealand. The three New Zealand owned banks have 4% of banking assets.
Have the Banks made a profit?
The combined profits of the ‘big four’ Australian owned banks now exceed the combined profits of all other companies listed on the stock exchange NZX 50 series.
In 2008 Banks earned $3.26 billion; the earnings of the NZX 50 were $2.89 billion.
Did the Banks pass on the cut to the Official Cash Rate (OCR)?
The Reserve Bank cut the OCR from its high of 8.25 % in mid 2008, to only 2.5% today.
But the overseas owned banks reduced interest rates by less than the fall in the OCR. 1% margin in interest rates was not passed on to bank customers. 1% extra interest added $787 million to costs for New Zealand businesses; and 1% higher margin on loans added $460 million to the net interest costs to the farming sector.
The biggest cost was in the housing sector: 1% extra interest cost added over $1.6 billion to mortgage repayments.
New Zealand businesses are suffering
In 2009 bank lending for home loans rose about $3.2 billion (to $164.8 billion). Meanwhile business lending fell by about $3 billion (to $78 billion.)
The effects on the farming sector have been negative
Federated Farmers interest rates survey in June 2009 found that farm business overdraft interest rates had fallen an average of 2.68 % since December 2008. Meanwhile the OCR was cut by 4%.
Ordinary New Zealanders had problems paying their mortgages
In five years, Budgeting and Family Support Services has only seen one family lose their house in a mortgage sale. But in the first three months on 2009, fifteen families had already lost their home.
Have the Banks contributed to overseas debt and a housing bubble?
In the last ten years, personal lending has almost doubled, from $60 billion to $105 billion; most of the lending has been for housing.
Home loans now make up 55% of bank lending, up from 35% ten years ago. The banks borrowed more money to fund property price increases which contributed to a rise in overseas debt.
Between 2003 and 2009 net overseas liabilities rose from $100.6 billion to $176.3 billion; that’s a rise from 76.8% of GDP to 98%.
What have the banks got to do with our volatile exchange rate?
High overseas borrowing has impacted on the exchange rate which is subject to high volatility. The export sector makes up roughly 30% of GDP - about $40 billion per year but suffers the most from currency instability which means uncertain returns.
PROGRESSIVE SUBMISSION ON THE LAW COMMISSION PAPER: ‘ALCOHOL IN OUR LIVES’ I am under no illusion about the challenge involved if we are to seriously reduce the harm caused by alcohol. But doing nothing is not an option.
Alcohol is by far the most damaging drug in the country. It causes between $2-$3 billion dollars worth of economic and social harm each year. The personal cost to families and loved ones is incalculable. How can we measure the cost of a family tragedy?
One of the most damaging drugs we face right now is not even illegal; our kids can buy it in the local dairy; they play sports and have it promoted to them all the time; they see it on TV, on billboards and hear about it on the radio.
The abuse of alcohol amongst our young people is on the rise and it’s destroying lives.
I have been working with others like Dr Doug Sellman of the Otago School of Medicine to raise awareness of the damage that alcohol is causing. We have a unique opportunity right now to do something, through the Law Commission’s review of the legislation to do with the drinking age, the availability and the advertising of alcohol.
Did you know that every advertisement seen by a young person increases the number of drinks they consume by 1%. They become customers for life. And people like you end up picking up the pieces.
Currently, $200,000 per day is spent on marketing and advertising alcohol. About half the marketing is spent on sponsorship.
I welcome the Law Commission’s issues paper which gives New Zealanders a unique opportunity to reform the legal framework in which alcohol is sold, advertised and promoted.
It gives us a chance today to do more to protect New Zealanders from the harm caused by the abuse of alcohol.
The Progressive Party submission calls on the Law Commission to do more in its final recommendations to guide law makers on how to further curb alcohol advertising, particularly to the most vulnerable New Zealanders - the young. I would like to see more options put forward by the Law Commission on how we can greatly reduce the availability of alcohol to young people. I have also given my opinions and made comments on every option put forward in the Law Commission’s paper, ‘Alcohol in our Lives’.
For the full submission: go here.
For my speech to the National CAYAD hui, go here.
"Ten things the alcohol industry won't tell you about alcohol"
Alcohol Action are holding their last two last meetings this week with presenter Dr. Doug Sellman.
The meetings are at: CHRISTCHURCH: Art Gallery Theatre, Tuesday 17th November, 7.30-9pm PORIRUA: Helen Smith Community Room, Wednesday 18th November, 7.30-9pm
There is still time to get in a late submissions to the Law Commission.
Use milk payout to farmers to strengthen industry
It's important that the increase in Fonterra's payout to farmers is used to strengthen the industry, and not squandered.
The increased pay out is very timely for a large number of farmers who have been struggling with higher input prices and enormous costs for financing. Interest rates for many farmers have not come down.
But the risk is that the higher payout will lead to higher farm valuations and in turn to yet more farm indebtedness. That's what happened too often when the milk payout reached $7 a kilo. When the price then dropped, it left a lot of farmers under mortgage stress.
Banks should be careful about getting into the same position of lending against valuations based on favourable milk payouts.
The payout shows New Zealand is well positioned as a food producer to continue to earn a living when global conditions are less than favourable.
When payouts increase as much as this one has, the extra earnings need to be used to strengthen the industry, for example by stronger investment in research and development, and strenthening balance sheets to reduce our exposure to rapacious overseas owned banks.
A generation of kids will be lost – New Zealand must do more
Launch of the Mutima Project in Christchurch
16,000 children are dying from hunger every day because food aid is now at its lowest level in twenty years, but the National government remains determined not to use our aid for ‘poverty reduction.
The head of the United Nation’s World Food Programme recently announced that tens of millions of the world’s poor will have their food rations cut or cancelled in the next few weeks because some OECD countries have slashed aid after the financial crisis.
The Mutima project is a volunteer organisation and will send a team of cardiac surgeons to Zambia to perform life-saving heart surgery on young adults.
I commend them for the strength of their personal commitment and their determination to serve. We are a stronger and more caring community because of people like these Christchurch surgeons. Because of them, a hundred young Zambians will have a second chance at life.
About 60% of the Zambian population are living on less than a $1 per day.
But where is the urgency from the National government to save a generation of children who will die from starvation if the world does nothing?
The National government has recently announced that it will abolish the goal of ‘poverty reduction’ for our aid, and replace it with a goal of ‘economic development’.
I am a strong champion of economic development but you can’t do much business development if people don’t have enough to eat or clean water to drink.
I want to see the National government do more about bad governance and corruption in some of the poorest countries and see New Zealand get behind a new international Natural Resource Charter which sets out ‘best practice’ in countries with natural resources like oil (or copper in Zambia), so proceeds of those resources go to the poorest people and don’t end up in the pockets of the corrupt.
For the speech, go here.
Who owns the ASB? Not us.
The ASB has been an Australian owned bank for the last two decades, and it is misleading the public when it pretends to be a ‘Kiwi Bank’.
The ABS is running promotional ads claiming ‘We’ve been a Kiwi Bank since 1847’.
The truth is we don’t really know who owns the ASB. We know it is owned 100% by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA), but who owns the Commonwealth Bank?
It used to be owned by the Federal Government of Australia but it was privatised in stages beginning in 1991.
Almost half of the current owners of the Commonwealth Bank are ‘nominee’ companies.
That means their identities are hidden behind other well-known companies, like the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC).
We don’t really know who owns ASB. All we know for sure is that New Zealand doesn’t.
For the release, go here.
An ‘unfortunate arrangement’
The Auditor General’s findings about Bill English’s accommodation arrangements go significantly further than findings that caused Marion Hobbs and Phillida Bunkle to stand down from ministerial office in 2001. This makes Mr English’s position as finance minister very difficult. I have been in the same position as Mr Key, in having to make a decision on the future of the Minister. A precedent for the right thing to do has been set.
I wrote to the Auditor-General saying Mr English’ arrangements needed scrutiny. The report finds Mr English’s arrangements were not within the rules. The Auditor General’s report states:
The result was that the Crown was renting a property for Mr English from a trust in which he had an interest, and the arrangement was explicitly based on a view that he did not have an interest. Clearly, this was unfortunate.
The report discloses Mr English went to some lengths to arrange his affairs around the accommodation allowance entitlement. That is not a good look for a Minister of Finance.
The Auditor-General’s advice does not even mention other issues that the Prime Minister still needs to consider: that Mr English was giving his Wellington address as his home for the purpose of being a director of a company (incidentally, the company that owns his Dipton investment), but claiming to live in Dipton for the purpose of receiving an accommodation allowance.
A prudent minister might have noticed the contradiction between those two claims.
I have always welcomed the idea of Mr English having his family with him in Wellington. That is not the issue. The question is whether he was right to claim entitlements for doing so. It would not have been in any way objectionable if Mr English had lived in Wellington with his family and claimed an out of town allowance for his occasional trips to Dipton.
For the release, go here.
We have a drinking problem
05/10/09 16:14
There is a culture of romanticising heavy drinking in New Zealand. All-Blacks games and the Black Caps summer cricket series drip in alcohol promotion. But we act surprised when cricketer Jesse Ryder and rugby star Jimmy Cowan get into trouble for drinking too much. The community vilifies them, rather than the alcohol companies who sponsor the games and encourage young New Zealanders to go out do exactly that - drink to excess.
A leading alcohol researcher in the United Kingdom said that “Nations, like people, can develop a pathological pattern of alcohol misuse.” That’s what has happened in New Zealand. We already had a drinking culture, but the easy availability of alcohol, the lowering of the drinking age, and the influence of the alcohol industry on alcohol-control policy has turned that culture into a pathological problem.
We shouldn’t be surprised that teenage girls have drinking problems. They see the ads, and then they walk into dairies, local supermarkets and neighborhood liquor stores where they can buy alcohol anytime they want. No wonder our young teens have a booze problem
It’s hard to say it out loud: “We have a problem with alcohol abuse”. There are a lot of people who use alcohol responsibly, and they feel like their lifestyle is being criticised. But their drinking habits are not an issue. The culture of tolerating heavy drinking is the problem.
The police know all about it. While most of us are sleeping peacefully in our beds, they’re dealing with the violence on the streets; the doctors and nurses are patching people up in our hospitals and our councils clean up the mess before we get up in the morning.
So in case you slept through the drunken chaos during any weekend, here are some facts:
The consequences of harmful drinking affect us all.
The next question is what we should do about it.
We need to reduce the availability of alcohol because research around the world has shown that there is a direct link between the availability of alcohol and the level of harm caused by alcohol.
We should increase the minimum age for buying alcohol to twenty years.
More needs to be done to help communities reduce the proliferation of liquor retailers.
The advertising of alcohol should be reduced, especially on television during the coverage of sport.
Give police much stronger tools for making pubs comply with the law. At the moment if they have serious concerns about license breaches, they have to wait until a license comes up for renewal. They should be able to do something straight away.
Most disturbing, is the continued promotion of alcohol to young people who don’t have as many choices available to them, are more likely to succumb to peer pressure and are susceptible to advertising.
We recognise there’s a problem, but then we put the fox in charge of the henhouse and expect the alcohol industry to police themselves and come up with the right policies to control alcohol consumption in our communities.
The good news is that people who enjoy the many positive features that come with drinking in moderation - enjoying friendships, socialising and having fun - are starting to see that there is a big problem in our communities, and that we need a major culture change in our attitude to heavy drinking. That means we all have to do something, because we are all affected by the abuse of alcohol.
For more information on the “Ten things the alcohol industry won’t tell you about alcohol” and the timetable for the 38 meetings throughout New Zealand, go to www.alcoholaction.co.nz .
I am chairing the meeting in Timaru on the 8th October at Sopheze on the Bay, at 7.30pm. Get to one of the meetings if you can.
The Progressive Party will be writing a submission on New Zealand’s alcohol policies to the Law Commission’s report on alcohol. If you would like to do this too, post a submission to Liquor Project Co-ordinator, Law Commission, PO Box 2509, Wellington, by Friday 30th October 2009.
A leading alcohol researcher in the United Kingdom said that “Nations, like people, can develop a pathological pattern of alcohol misuse.” That’s what has happened in New Zealand. We already had a drinking culture, but the easy availability of alcohol, the lowering of the drinking age, and the influence of the alcohol industry on alcohol-control policy has turned that culture into a pathological problem.
We shouldn’t be surprised that teenage girls have drinking problems. They see the ads, and then they walk into dairies, local supermarkets and neighborhood liquor stores where they can buy alcohol anytime they want. No wonder our young teens have a booze problem
It’s hard to say it out loud: “We have a problem with alcohol abuse”. There are a lot of people who use alcohol responsibly, and they feel like their lifestyle is being criticised. But their drinking habits are not an issue. The culture of tolerating heavy drinking is the problem.
The police know all about it. While most of us are sleeping peacefully in our beds, they’re dealing with the violence on the streets; the doctors and nurses are patching people up in our hospitals and our councils clean up the mess before we get up in the morning.
So in case you slept through the drunken chaos during any weekend, here are some facts:
- Between half and three-quarters of all police work is associated in some way with alcohol abuse.
- Sixty per cent of people arrested by the police are under the influence of alcohol at the time they commit the offence for which they are arrested.
- Researchers estimate that alcohol causes $2,400 million of harm each year.
- Alcohol abuse affects the community and people other than the drinker; forty per cent of all deaths and almost half of all other injuries from alcohol-related car crashes are to ‘innocent victims’ who were not drinking.
The consequences of harmful drinking affect us all.
The next question is what we should do about it.
We need to reduce the availability of alcohol because research around the world has shown that there is a direct link between the availability of alcohol and the level of harm caused by alcohol.
We should increase the minimum age for buying alcohol to twenty years.
More needs to be done to help communities reduce the proliferation of liquor retailers.
The advertising of alcohol should be reduced, especially on television during the coverage of sport.
Give police much stronger tools for making pubs comply with the law. At the moment if they have serious concerns about license breaches, they have to wait until a license comes up for renewal. They should be able to do something straight away.
Most disturbing, is the continued promotion of alcohol to young people who don’t have as many choices available to them, are more likely to succumb to peer pressure and are susceptible to advertising.
We recognise there’s a problem, but then we put the fox in charge of the henhouse and expect the alcohol industry to police themselves and come up with the right policies to control alcohol consumption in our communities.
The good news is that people who enjoy the many positive features that come with drinking in moderation - enjoying friendships, socialising and having fun - are starting to see that there is a big problem in our communities, and that we need a major culture change in our attitude to heavy drinking. That means we all have to do something, because we are all affected by the abuse of alcohol.
For more information on the “Ten things the alcohol industry won’t tell you about alcohol” and the timetable for the 38 meetings throughout New Zealand, go to www.alcoholaction.co.nz .
I am chairing the meeting in Timaru on the 8th October at Sopheze on the Bay, at 7.30pm. Get to one of the meetings if you can.
The Progressive Party will be writing a submission on New Zealand’s alcohol policies to the Law Commission’s report on alcohol. If you would like to do this too, post a submission to Liquor Project Co-ordinator, Law Commission, PO Box 2509, Wellington, by Friday 30th October 2009.
July Edition of Jim's E-News
28/07/09 12:00
The economic situation
Since my last E-news, we have seen a consistent rise in unemployment. As I suspected, the National Party has no plan and no meaningful ideas for creating a more job rich economy. Its approach is to stand on the sidelines and hope the economy turns the corner on its own.
Progressives have a better idea.
We support proactive partnerships between government and industry to invest in job rich, high-skill and innovative initiatives, especially in the regions of New Zealand.
We want to use the strength of government to invest in infrastructure, and skills training so that we create jobs and emerge from the tough global conditions stronger.
National got into office with promises it couldn’t keep
When you think about it - National was elected on a lot of promises it hasn’t been able to keep:
For now the National government is getting by on smiles and slogans. New Zealanders are giving them the benefit of the doubt - and that’s not surprising. We all want New Zealand to succeed.
Sooner or later, though, National will have to answer why they haven’t been able to come up with any meaningful ideas to solve the problems New Zealand faces.
Membership of the Labour Party
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.
Our work together in Opposition has been fruitful. For example, we worked alongside our Labour colleagues on the Mt Albert by-election. 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. Some working on campaigns want to have the same rights of membership as other campaign workers.
I discussed this with Labour’s New Zealand Council recently. 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’t want to join with Labour the choice to simply remain members of the Progressives.
Banks have questions to answer
The Labour Party, the Progressives and the Greens have announced they are holding the equivalent of a parliamentary select inquiry into bank profits.
Banks are charging interest rates that are higher than the same banks charge in Australia. 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. That’s more than the entire sum collected in GST revenue. The amount they have been paying themselves has increased rapidly over the last three or four years.
Interest rates charged by the overseas banks are especially affecting farmers.
Total farm debt at the moment is around $43 billion. 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.
Every one per cent of interest charged represents $450 million off the bottom line of New Zealand’s farms. The Australian banks charge interest on unsecured loans of 17.95%, compared to 16.9% charged by Kiwibank. Interest on a standard Westpac credit card is 19.45%. In Australia, the comparable interest rate charged on a standard Westpac card is 17.74%. Australia has a higher official cash rate than we do. Kiwibank is able to charge 12.9% on its standard credit cards.
An inquiry will help to establish why Aussie banks charge us more than they charge Australians.
Feds’ concern over interest rates a topic for bank inquiry
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 “floating” 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’ concerns.
Banks need to explain why their interest rates haven’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. Not even the Governor of the Reserve bank can understand why they are not reducing their rates.
Farmers are the backbone of the economy, and the pressure high interest rates are causing farmers is pressure on New Zealand’s entire economic development.
‘Expert’ slams Interest Rates Inquiry
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. He goes on to say that “blaming banks is a sport that has been under way for a long time. You blame the banks for all sorts of things but who cares about facts. Banks are big and anonymous; they appear to have lots of money, so why not blame them if something is wrong?” Is this the same David Tripe who was a constant and vociferous critic of Kiwibank saying it would never work! He is at least quiet on that front these days.
Hollow promises
The ‘Rural News’ has picked up on the proposal “to cut 60 frontline biosecurity staff from already overstretched border security contingent – the axe is ultimately in (Minister David) Carter’s hands… 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’s beleaguered border defences.”
Treasury claims about privatisation boosting productivity
Treasury’s claim that privatisation boosts productivity is an old song that Treasury should be embarrassed about.
Treasury made the exact same claim about the privatisation of rail. It could not have been more wrong. The privatisation of rail was a disaster on any reasonable measure.
In parliament last week, I tabled Treasury’s 1999 report “The Privatisation of New Zealand Rail.”
In the report, produced when Bill English was finance minister, Treasury claimed, “welfare increased from the privatisation of rail. This reflects the remarkable improvement in productivity that took place.”
Treasury has long made a habit of calling for the same medicine regardless of the facts. When the facts showed Treasury’s advice about privatising rail was hopelessly wrong, they made up a case that said it was great anyway! You can’t beat this for poor quality advice. If Treasury was a doctor, the patient would be dead.
In an ironic twist on Treasury’s call for other government departments to contract out more work, the discredited rail report was produced under contract for Treasury.
Fitch warning a wake up on bank profits
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.
The Fitch rating agency warns that New Zealand has a fifty-fifty chance of a credit downgrade because the current account is very high. Unless it halves, we will be downgraded, and households, farmers and businesses will have to pay higher interest rates.
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. Farmers alone are paying interest of around six billion dollars in farm debt.
Interest rates charged here by the Australian-owned banks are higher than the same banks charge in Australia. Their margins are also higher.
We are sending that money to the overseas-owned banks because they are financing the current account deficit. When house prices rose, New Zealanders borrowed against the capital, bought new plasma TVs, but didn’t increase our capacity to earn more.
Now the bill is starting to come in. Current account deficits have a history of reversing themselves sharply, with very sudden falls in consumption. That amounts to a poor outlook when the government is already hoping the recession will end by itself.
Unfortunately the government doesn’t have any economic plans to reduce the current account deficit and it doesn’t even recognise the levels of profits going to overseas-owned banks are a problem.
Rogernomics was meant to end the current account deficit problem for ever. It failed abysmally.
How to reduce prison populations
There are too many people in prison and the Chief Justice is right to raise the issue.
But the only viable way to reduce prison overcrowding is to reduce the level of crime by targeting drugs and alcohol. Longer prison sentences are not making much difference.
The Chief Justice’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. The government wants to build prisons out of shipping containers. The next step will be putting containers on a container ship and shipping them offshore.
All of these ideas are looking at the wrong end of the problem. Early intervention works best and costs less. If you intervene early, you don’t have as many victims, and you don’t need to worry about locking people up or letting them out.
Three out of five offences are committed while the offender is under the influence of alcohol. If you want to cut crime, you can’t go past that figure.
The government made big promises about significantly cutting serious offending. It won’t keep that promise, because it won’t do anything about the most common factor in criminal offending.
Reducing the abuse of alcohol is a tough issue to fix. 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.
All talk and no jobs
National is talking big about agriculture, but it’s running up a surrender flag with no new ideas.
John Key billed a recent speech as a major statement on the economy, but he had no new ideas while unemployment is increasing.
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. Yet while unemployment is rising quickly in regional New Zealand, National has no ministry or policy for regional development or industry development. They never did and they don’t have now.
National imposed a massive tax increase on research and development and it cancelled a two-billion dollar partnership between the government and private sector to invest in primary sector innovation.
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. John Key is all talk and no jobs.
Complaints over secret agreements with water in Auckland
An attempt to hold negotiations over Auckland’s water services in secret might be a breach of the law. I am going to the Ombudsman and Auditor-General with complaints over a ‘confidentiality agreement’ Watercare has tried to make Auckland councils sign. The agreement would stop councils from disclosing any details about the transfer of water businesses to Watercare.
The agreement appears to be an attempt to thwart the law around official information - in particular the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. It provides the only grounds councils can use to restrict disclosure of information. It also provides for redress through the Ombudsman.
The ‘confidentiality agreement’ has the whiff of darkness about it. There should be nothing in the transfer of the water business of councils that can’t be dealt with through the official information statutes. The important protection for the public is that officials can’t use our money without being accountable to the public. If there are public interest grounds for withholding information, then those grounds are subject to simple review by the Ombudsman.
Therefore the attempt to override the statute with a secrecy deal appears to be sinister. You can’t use public money for unlawful purposes. Thwarting an Act of parliament is unlawful. Any public money used to write this agreement or negotiate it will have to be paid back. Any lawyers involved should be thinking about refunding their fees.
What we are seeing repeatedly from the national government and its henchmen in Auckland is a highly undemocratic tendency towards taxation without representation.
First, the public’s right to vote on Auckland was blocked by Act of parliament, passed under urgency. Now the public’s right to know what is happening to our assets is being blocked.
Since my last E-news, we have seen a consistent rise in unemployment. As I suspected, the National Party has no plan and no meaningful ideas for creating a more job rich economy. Its approach is to stand on the sidelines and hope the economy turns the corner on its own.
Progressives have a better idea.
We support proactive partnerships between government and industry to invest in job rich, high-skill and innovative initiatives, especially in the regions of New Zealand.
We want to use the strength of government to invest in infrastructure, and skills training so that we create jobs and emerge from the tough global conditions stronger.
National got into office with promises it couldn’t keep
When you think about it - National was elected on a lot of promises it hasn’t been able to keep:
- They promised wages in New Zealand would catch up to wages in Australia; They have no plan to boost wages.
- They promised a three year program of tax cuts; we always said their promise was unaffordable.
- 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.
- They claimed they would significantly reduce violent crime; They haven’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.
For now the National government is getting by on smiles and slogans. New Zealanders are giving them the benefit of the doubt - and that’s not surprising. We all want New Zealand to succeed.
Sooner or later, though, National will have to answer why they haven’t been able to come up with any meaningful ideas to solve the problems New Zealand faces.
Membership of the Labour Party
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.
Our work together in Opposition has been fruitful. For example, we worked alongside our Labour colleagues on the Mt Albert by-election. 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. Some working on campaigns want to have the same rights of membership as other campaign workers.
I discussed this with Labour’s New Zealand Council recently. 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’t want to join with Labour the choice to simply remain members of the Progressives.
Banks have questions to answer
The Labour Party, the Progressives and the Greens have announced they are holding the equivalent of a parliamentary select inquiry into bank profits.
Banks are charging interest rates that are higher than the same banks charge in Australia. 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. That’s more than the entire sum collected in GST revenue. The amount they have been paying themselves has increased rapidly over the last three or four years.
Interest rates charged by the overseas banks are especially affecting farmers.
Total farm debt at the moment is around $43 billion. 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.
Every one per cent of interest charged represents $450 million off the bottom line of New Zealand’s farms. The Australian banks charge interest on unsecured loans of 17.95%, compared to 16.9% charged by Kiwibank. Interest on a standard Westpac credit card is 19.45%. In Australia, the comparable interest rate charged on a standard Westpac card is 17.74%. Australia has a higher official cash rate than we do. Kiwibank is able to charge 12.9% on its standard credit cards.
An inquiry will help to establish why Aussie banks charge us more than they charge Australians.
Feds’ concern over interest rates a topic for bank inquiry
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 “floating” 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’ concerns.
Banks need to explain why their interest rates haven’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. Not even the Governor of the Reserve bank can understand why they are not reducing their rates.
Farmers are the backbone of the economy, and the pressure high interest rates are causing farmers is pressure on New Zealand’s entire economic development.
‘Expert’ slams Interest Rates Inquiry
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. He goes on to say that “blaming banks is a sport that has been under way for a long time. You blame the banks for all sorts of things but who cares about facts. Banks are big and anonymous; they appear to have lots of money, so why not blame them if something is wrong?” Is this the same David Tripe who was a constant and vociferous critic of Kiwibank saying it would never work! He is at least quiet on that front these days.
Hollow promises
The ‘Rural News’ has picked up on the proposal “to cut 60 frontline biosecurity staff from already overstretched border security contingent – the axe is ultimately in (Minister David) Carter’s hands… 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’s beleaguered border defences.”
- Quotes from National in opposition:
June 6, 2006: “National takes issue with Anderton’s ‘confidence’. Says: National: “Our borders are vulnerable; The Minister needs to fix it and fix it now.” - February 21 2007: National disputes Anderton’s claims we have “the best biosecurity system in the world”, arguing instead that we are actually losing the battle against organisms entering New Zealand.
- November 4, 2008: National claims if it were in Government it “would introduce a range of measures to ensure pest incursions did not threaten New Zealand’s competitive agricultural advantage. There’s no doubt we need stronger border controls and National will make changes to do that.”
- And finally:
April 7, 2009: From Minister Carter – “I’m the Minister responsible so it’s up to me to be providing that leadership. I’ve spoken to the people at MAF responsible for biosecurity and they have accepted things need to change.” - July 7 2009: MAF announces moves to disestablish 60 border security positions.
Treasury claims about privatisation boosting productivity
Treasury’s claim that privatisation boosts productivity is an old song that Treasury should be embarrassed about.
Treasury made the exact same claim about the privatisation of rail. It could not have been more wrong. The privatisation of rail was a disaster on any reasonable measure.
In parliament last week, I tabled Treasury’s 1999 report “The Privatisation of New Zealand Rail.”
In the report, produced when Bill English was finance minister, Treasury claimed, “welfare increased from the privatisation of rail. This reflects the remarkable improvement in productivity that took place.”
Treasury has long made a habit of calling for the same medicine regardless of the facts. When the facts showed Treasury’s advice about privatising rail was hopelessly wrong, they made up a case that said it was great anyway! You can’t beat this for poor quality advice. If Treasury was a doctor, the patient would be dead.
In an ironic twist on Treasury’s call for other government departments to contract out more work, the discredited rail report was produced under contract for Treasury.
Fitch warning a wake up on bank profits
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.
The Fitch rating agency warns that New Zealand has a fifty-fifty chance of a credit downgrade because the current account is very high. Unless it halves, we will be downgraded, and households, farmers and businesses will have to pay higher interest rates.
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. Farmers alone are paying interest of around six billion dollars in farm debt.
Interest rates charged here by the Australian-owned banks are higher than the same banks charge in Australia. Their margins are also higher.
We are sending that money to the overseas-owned banks because they are financing the current account deficit. When house prices rose, New Zealanders borrowed against the capital, bought new plasma TVs, but didn’t increase our capacity to earn more.
Now the bill is starting to come in. Current account deficits have a history of reversing themselves sharply, with very sudden falls in consumption. That amounts to a poor outlook when the government is already hoping the recession will end by itself.
Unfortunately the government doesn’t have any economic plans to reduce the current account deficit and it doesn’t even recognise the levels of profits going to overseas-owned banks are a problem.
Rogernomics was meant to end the current account deficit problem for ever. It failed abysmally.
How to reduce prison populations
There are too many people in prison and the Chief Justice is right to raise the issue.
But the only viable way to reduce prison overcrowding is to reduce the level of crime by targeting drugs and alcohol. Longer prison sentences are not making much difference.
The Chief Justice’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. The government wants to build prisons out of shipping containers. The next step will be putting containers on a container ship and shipping them offshore.
All of these ideas are looking at the wrong end of the problem. Early intervention works best and costs less. If you intervene early, you don’t have as many victims, and you don’t need to worry about locking people up or letting them out.
Three out of five offences are committed while the offender is under the influence of alcohol. If you want to cut crime, you can’t go past that figure.
The government made big promises about significantly cutting serious offending. It won’t keep that promise, because it won’t do anything about the most common factor in criminal offending.
Reducing the abuse of alcohol is a tough issue to fix. 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.
All talk and no jobs
National is talking big about agriculture, but it’s running up a surrender flag with no new ideas.
John Key billed a recent speech as a major statement on the economy, but he had no new ideas while unemployment is increasing.
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. Yet while unemployment is rising quickly in regional New Zealand, National has no ministry or policy for regional development or industry development. They never did and they don’t have now.
National imposed a massive tax increase on research and development and it cancelled a two-billion dollar partnership between the government and private sector to invest in primary sector innovation.
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. John Key is all talk and no jobs.
Complaints over secret agreements with water in Auckland
An attempt to hold negotiations over Auckland’s water services in secret might be a breach of the law. I am going to the Ombudsman and Auditor-General with complaints over a ‘confidentiality agreement’ Watercare has tried to make Auckland councils sign. The agreement would stop councils from disclosing any details about the transfer of water businesses to Watercare.
The agreement appears to be an attempt to thwart the law around official information - in particular the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. It provides the only grounds councils can use to restrict disclosure of information. It also provides for redress through the Ombudsman.
The ‘confidentiality agreement’ has the whiff of darkness about it. There should be nothing in the transfer of the water business of councils that can’t be dealt with through the official information statutes. The important protection for the public is that officials can’t use our money without being accountable to the public. If there are public interest grounds for withholding information, then those grounds are subject to simple review by the Ombudsman.
Therefore the attempt to override the statute with a secrecy deal appears to be sinister. You can’t use public money for unlawful purposes. Thwarting an Act of parliament is unlawful. Any public money used to write this agreement or negotiate it will have to be paid back. Any lawyers involved should be thinking about refunding their fees.
What we are seeing repeatedly from the national government and its henchmen in Auckland is a highly undemocratic tendency towards taxation without representation.
First, the public’s right to vote on Auckland was blocked by Act of parliament, passed under urgency. Now the public’s right to know what is happening to our assets is being blocked.
May Edition of Jim's eNews
29/05/09 12:15
Budget Day 09 - Huge cuts in primary sector science
28.05.09
Nearly as much is being cut out of science and research in the primary sector as the government is investing in infrastructure.
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’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. Overall, the government is cutting innovation spending by more than the value of the personal tax cuts.
This is huge cut in science and research. It is a disaster for the future of New Zealand’s economy.
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.
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.
Winter rebate from electricity companies would be appreciated
22.05.09
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. 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 – now the monthly bill is the same – or more – than the bi-monthly one was.
The Commerce Commission’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. The electricity companies’ profits are at the expense of New Zealand’s most economically vulnerable.
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. For superannuitants, beneficiaries and people who have lost their jobs in the downturn, it would make a huge difference.
The Commerce Commission’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’ of their consumers with a winter rebate during this winter.
Comment on economics and the recession Response to Daniel Silva’s article in the Country-wide magazine
21.05.09
So Daniel Silva thinks that the current international recession isn’t going to affect New Zealand much. Well that’s all right then? Actually – no.
He’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.See website for full response
Aucklanders should have elected, not appointed leaders
19.05.09
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.
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.
A government that listened to New Zealanders would not have a problem making a choice of leadership. The people do the appointing for it. 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.
I am very concerned that the quality of decision-making in the government is falling apart as the pressure of actually governing comes on. The National government is making poor decisions or refusing to make them at all. It created a sense of urgency for itself over Auckland’s super city, and now it can’t even meet its own urgent timetable.
Needle Exchange Programme proven it worth
19.05.09
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”.
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.
The report said plainly that the needle exchange programme reduces the harm caused by drug use. It told me the programme 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’t work. Here was clear evidence of a programme that worked.
There were people who sneered at that as liberal political correctness. I can tell you from personal experience there aren’t many votes in being wise or liberal about this stuff. But it was then, and is now, the right thing to do anyway.
The results have been very worthwhile. Obviously, I wish we didn’t need this programme. I wish we didn’t have drug use causing the harm it does, wrecking the lives of many people, and wrecking many communities.
But it does happen. It will keep happening. And if we care about vulnerable victims then our responsibility is to reduce the harm to them as much as we can. The needle exchange programme does just that and I endorse it for that reason.
Anderton brands Auckland bill as the “Removal of Democracy” bill
18.05.09
The Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill which will usher in Auckland’s “supercity” should be renamed the Removal of Democracy Bill.
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.
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 right-wingers have always resented that change and this proposal returns Auckland to the past they have always hankered after.
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. Does anyone believe that those pools will continue to be free under the government’s proposal? I can already hear the self appointed Mayor of the super city, John Banks, making speeches about why the ratepayers of Auckland City shouldn’t be subsidising the swimming pools of south Auckland.
I support a strong regional government for Auckland. There used to be one – 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 vehicles.
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. Auckland has reaped the benefit ever since,” Jim Anderton said.
Now they’re having another go. This is a privatisers’ dream to sell the community assets of Auckland, and is entirely in line with Rodney Hide and the ACT party’s ideologies. Does anyone believe that this is in the best interests of Aucklanders?
You can understand in those circumstances why the National ACT government doesn’t want people to have a say as to whether or not they want this outrageous piece of community destruction to go ahead.
Tribute to Senior-Constable Len Snee
12.05.09
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 Parliament and government is send men and women into danger on our behalf. We send them out knowing that sometimes, on our darkest days, they won’t come back alive. 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 that they go 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’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’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’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.
Launch of the Finsec Banking petition
05.05.09
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’s time for them to give something back. It’ 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.
MPs should not be able to fight by-elections
05.05.09
It’s a farce that sitting MPs are standing for election to parliament. I am drafting a members’ bill to stop MPs from standing for parliament in by-elections. 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.
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. 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.
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.
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’s a democratic farce to have different rules in a by-election.
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 and contest it on the same basis as anyone else.
MPs shouldn’t fight a parliamentary by-election while they’re drawing a full parliamentary salary.
28.05.09
Nearly as much is being cut out of science and research in the primary sector as the government is investing in infrastructure.
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’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. Overall, the government is cutting innovation spending by more than the value of the personal tax cuts.
This is huge cut in science and research. It is a disaster for the future of New Zealand’s economy.
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.
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.
Winter rebate from electricity companies would be appreciated
22.05.09
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. 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 – now the monthly bill is the same – or more – than the bi-monthly one was.
The Commerce Commission’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. The electricity companies’ profits are at the expense of New Zealand’s most economically vulnerable.
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. For superannuitants, beneficiaries and people who have lost their jobs in the downturn, it would make a huge difference.
The Commerce Commission’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’ of their consumers with a winter rebate during this winter.
Comment on economics and the recession Response to Daniel Silva’s article in the Country-wide magazine
21.05.09
So Daniel Silva thinks that the current international recession isn’t going to affect New Zealand much. Well that’s all right then? Actually – no.
He’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.See website for full response
Aucklanders should have elected, not appointed leaders
19.05.09
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.
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.
A government that listened to New Zealanders would not have a problem making a choice of leadership. The people do the appointing for it. 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.
I am very concerned that the quality of decision-making in the government is falling apart as the pressure of actually governing comes on. The National government is making poor decisions or refusing to make them at all. It created a sense of urgency for itself over Auckland’s super city, and now it can’t even meet its own urgent timetable.
Needle Exchange Programme proven it worth
19.05.09
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”.
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.
The report said plainly that the needle exchange programme reduces the harm caused by drug use. It told me the programme 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’t work. Here was clear evidence of a programme that worked.
There were people who sneered at that as liberal political correctness. I can tell you from personal experience there aren’t many votes in being wise or liberal about this stuff. But it was then, and is now, the right thing to do anyway.
The results have been very worthwhile. Obviously, I wish we didn’t need this programme. I wish we didn’t have drug use causing the harm it does, wrecking the lives of many people, and wrecking many communities.
But it does happen. It will keep happening. And if we care about vulnerable victims then our responsibility is to reduce the harm to them as much as we can. The needle exchange programme does just that and I endorse it for that reason.
Anderton brands Auckland bill as the “Removal of Democracy” bill
18.05.09
The Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill which will usher in Auckland’s “supercity” should be renamed the Removal of Democracy Bill.
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.
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 right-wingers have always resented that change and this proposal returns Auckland to the past they have always hankered after.
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. Does anyone believe that those pools will continue to be free under the government’s proposal? I can already hear the self appointed Mayor of the super city, John Banks, making speeches about why the ratepayers of Auckland City shouldn’t be subsidising the swimming pools of south Auckland.
I support a strong regional government for Auckland. There used to be one – 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 vehicles.
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. Auckland has reaped the benefit ever since,” Jim Anderton said.
Now they’re having another go. This is a privatisers’ dream to sell the community assets of Auckland, and is entirely in line with Rodney Hide and the ACT party’s ideologies. Does anyone believe that this is in the best interests of Aucklanders?
You can understand in those circumstances why the National ACT government doesn’t want people to have a say as to whether or not they want this outrageous piece of community destruction to go ahead.
Tribute to Senior-Constable Len Snee
12.05.09
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 Parliament and government is send men and women into danger on our behalf. We send them out knowing that sometimes, on our darkest days, they won’t come back alive. 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 that they go 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’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’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’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.
Launch of the Finsec Banking petition
05.05.09
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’s time for them to give something back. It’ 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.
MPs should not be able to fight by-elections
05.05.09
It’s a farce that sitting MPs are standing for election to parliament. I am drafting a members’ bill to stop MPs from standing for parliament in by-elections. 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.
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. 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.
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.
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’s a democratic farce to have different rules in a by-election.
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 and contest it on the same basis as anyone else.
MPs shouldn’t fight a parliamentary by-election while they’re drawing a full parliamentary salary.