Newsletters
Jim's E-News, October 2011
09/11/11 12:58
A farewell to Parliament
This has been something of a special month for me, and there could not have been a better highlight than to have been joined by my family and friends as I gave my final or valedictory speech to Parliament on Tuesday 4 October.
It is hard to believe it is 27 years ago since I was elected as the Member of Parliament for the former seat of Sydenham, and even harder to believe the incredible passage of events that have occurred in the intervening years. Not the least among these was that I represented four different political parties in two electorates, and surviving the turbulent period of the 1980s in which I left the Labour Party as a result of its adherence to the philosophies of what became known as Rogernomics. Leaving the Labour Party when I did risked almost certain political oblivion, but instead I created political history by being the first MP to leave his parliamentary party, stand against it and win.
I have no doubt that I made the right decision to leave the Labour Party to form New Labour when I did, then taking it into the Alliance with other parties, and later by forming the Progressives as a coalition partner for Labour. I have no regrets about any of those decisions and under the same circumstances I would do exactly the same again.
Later, with the Clark-led Labour Government, we made a number of social and economic advancements of which I am particularly proud. As Minister of Economic, Industry and Regional Development, I oversaw 23 consecutive quarters of positive growth in every region of New Zealand, while unemployment fell to record low levels. Similarly, my term as Minister of Agriculture as well as Minister of Economic
Development demonstrated over and over again how the real strength of the New Zealand economy lies in innovation. The establishment of KiwiBank was a particular highlight and, while I had to fight long and hard to get it established, it was worth every ounce of effort and the bank has been roaring success.
There are some fights still to be won, namely suicide prevention and dealing with drug and alcohol abuse. These issues are sometimes side-lined because they are complex and hard to solve. Progress can be frustrating, but we have an overriding obligation to care for all of our citizens, many of whom who have reached the depths of despair and are no longer able to make good judgements for themselves.
Finally, the greatest satisfaction I’ve had in politics is to have been able to help thousands of individuals and hundreds of communities in ways almost no other occupation can make possible. That is an opportunity that you, as members of your communities, have given me and I thank you all for that.
My valedictory speech can be found here.
To view the interview on The Nation with Sean Plunket go here.
To hear the Focus on Politics podcast, go here.
To see the TV3 news clip, go here.
MMP: A better system than before
In a little over a month voters will get to have a say in the future of New Zealand’s electoral system with a referendum on representation systems being held in conjunction with the general election.
Broken election promises by previous governments coupled with the blatant unfairness of the First-Past-the-Post electoral system led to the introduction of the current MMP system in 1996, and it has resulted in some pretty important changes.
I remember 93 percent of the population was against the sale of Telecom in 1990, and Richard Prebble told parliament at the time that “New Zealand was lucky to have a government of such courage that it would stand up to a lobby group like that.” It was no wonder that people rebelled against an electoral system that delivered such outcomes, and in choosing MMP they made the right decision.
Consider this. Between 1853 and 1984 there were 1102 MPs elected to parliament. Only 25 of them were women. Currently there are 38 women in this parliament; more than were elected in the previous 131 years. There are also more young, Maori, Asian and representatives of different religious persuasions.
Another breakthrough has been the power and scrutiny of select committees. Almost every piece of legislation now goes to select committee, the most democratic process of all Commonwealth Parliament as far as I know. Select committees are also now often chaired by opposition MPs, so it is much more difficult for the government to control them.
Importantly, MMP has broken the back of the old two-party stranglehold and nowadays political parties are required to work with each other more constructively. There is no doubt that the old adversarial nature of politics has lessened.
If I was to offer one piece of advice, it would be to vote to retain MMP in this year’s referendum. Believe me, it has certainly improved parliamentary representation and it would be a real backwards move to go back to the old system.
And as I leave parliament, here is a final note of encouragement to you all. I have always believed that every citizen should stand for public office in their lifetime because it would create a much better understanding of the democratic process and a much healthier respect for politics and parliament.
The culture of success
Throughout my years in politics I’ve been driven by the desire to make sure every New Zealander has the opportunity and security that a well-paid, satisfying job brings, that everyone has access to the essentials of a strong community such as health care, education, affordable quality housing and a decent standard of living in retirement.
If we want these things, however, we need a strong economy capable of sustaining them, and my message is that it is our agricultural and horticultural industries have the potential to create jobs and prosperity throughout the regions of New Zealand.
Over the last four decades, our economy has been struggling to pay for what we want, and we’ve been slipping behind the rest of the developed world. Although our markets and our exports have changed, we still haven’t created enough of the high-value, high-skill innovation-led businesses we need. The main reason for this is that we don’t have enough investment in science and innovation to lift the productivity of our economy.
Agriculture is probably the most scientifically advanced of all our industries. Our primary industries have the scale, sophistication and the underlying science advantage to be a springboard for much greater things.
Everywhere you look around the world where economies have been successfully transformed to the benefit of their people and their communities, the pattern has been the same. It has been, without exception, where the government has worked alongside industry.
Yet, uncomfortable as it is for many people, especially in business, support for innovation in New Zealand has become a fault line between differing political philosophies. The current government wiped out a two billion public-private partnership in scientific research as soon as it got elected. A tax credit for research and development worth a billion dollars over three years was cancelled, and all this took place without much of a squeak, specifically from the business community itself.
This was nonsensical. We need innovation, talent and a culture that embeds innovation into the boardroom. And so we need a culture of creativity and success that celebrates and inspires the creation of new industry.
This was part of a speech given to the Conference of the New Zealand Institute of Agricultural and Horticultural Science at Te Papa on 04 October 2011.
The good, bad and ugly of parliamentary politics – with Jim Anderton and Simon Power
The ASPG Seminar in Parliament
The Good
The MMP environment has meant a far more diverse group of representatives. Between 1853 and 1984 there were 1102 MPs elected to the NZ House of Representatives. Only 25 of them were women. Currently there are 38 women in this parliament, - more than were elected in a total of 131 years and there are also more Maori, as well as Asian, and Pacific MPs. Parliament now, is more like New Zealand now.
So MMP was the right choice for New Zealand.
Another breakthrough has been the power and scrutiny of select committees. Almost every piece of legislation goes to select committee – the most democratic process of all Commonwealth Parliament as far as I know. Even the video surveillance legislation this month went to select committee at the very end of this term, when the Government wanted the Bill passed within days. The consultation process involved produced a bill that much better protected some ancient civil liberties; even though I’m sure it frustrated the Government. Select Committees are now often chaired by opposition MPs, so it is much more difficult for the government to control them.
When I chaired the sub-committee of the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee in 1984 we started an inquiry into the post-election devaluation. The government called it off after pressure from Treasury and the Reserve Bank by ordering the government members of the committee, to vote to cancel the enquiry. Ironically, the minister who gave that order was the same person who had written the book ‘Unbridled Power’ about the excessive use of political power by the executive over parliament. That couldn’t happen now.
The Bad
We have lobbying of minor parties by vested interests, who play each off against the others. One example - in 2008, as Minister of Fisheries I needed to amend the Fisheries Act following a court decision which put at risk the sustainability of our fisheries and to make it clear that the fishery should not be depleted by the way it was fished. Vested commercial interests spent a lot of time and resource lobbying first the Maori Party, then NZ First, and other parties. None wanted to be out-flanked by the Maori Party.
So we ended up with a law no one could intellectually defend because of the influence a few commercial interests had over minor parties.
So no system of government is perfect!
The Ugly
The defections of list MPs from the parties they were elected to represent have largely diminished now, but waka jumping gave MMP a very bad reputation. It was made too easy and even encouraged.
The adversarial nature of politics in the debating chamber is the ugly face of parliamentary politics most often displayed by the media to the people of New Zealand. It is not the reality of the overwhelming majority of the work of politicians at electorate, select committee, caucus or ministerial level in New Zealand politics.
New Zealanders would be better informed and have a different view of politics and politicians in their country if they were presented with a more balanced view of this reality.
Being elected as an MP to the Parliament of New Zealand is hard to do and happens to very few of our citizens. Since 1853 when our first parliament met with 36 MPs and the population of New Zealand was approximately 92,000, there have only been 1,365 MPs elected up until 2011 (158 years), with our population standing now at 4,416,324.
I have always believed that every citizen should stand for public office in their lifetime because it would create a much better understanding of the democratic process and a much healthier respect for politics and Parliament. But I’m not holding my breath!
This has been something of a special month for me, and there could not have been a better highlight than to have been joined by my family and friends as I gave my final or valedictory speech to Parliament on Tuesday 4 October.
It is hard to believe it is 27 years ago since I was elected as the Member of Parliament for the former seat of Sydenham, and even harder to believe the incredible passage of events that have occurred in the intervening years. Not the least among these was that I represented four different political parties in two electorates, and surviving the turbulent period of the 1980s in which I left the Labour Party as a result of its adherence to the philosophies of what became known as Rogernomics. Leaving the Labour Party when I did risked almost certain political oblivion, but instead I created political history by being the first MP to leave his parliamentary party, stand against it and win.
I have no doubt that I made the right decision to leave the Labour Party to form New Labour when I did, then taking it into the Alliance with other parties, and later by forming the Progressives as a coalition partner for Labour. I have no regrets about any of those decisions and under the same circumstances I would do exactly the same again.
Later, with the Clark-led Labour Government, we made a number of social and economic advancements of which I am particularly proud. As Minister of Economic, Industry and Regional Development, I oversaw 23 consecutive quarters of positive growth in every region of New Zealand, while unemployment fell to record low levels. Similarly, my term as Minister of Agriculture as well as Minister of Economic
Development demonstrated over and over again how the real strength of the New Zealand economy lies in innovation. The establishment of KiwiBank was a particular highlight and, while I had to fight long and hard to get it established, it was worth every ounce of effort and the bank has been roaring success.
There are some fights still to be won, namely suicide prevention and dealing with drug and alcohol abuse. These issues are sometimes side-lined because they are complex and hard to solve. Progress can be frustrating, but we have an overriding obligation to care for all of our citizens, many of whom who have reached the depths of despair and are no longer able to make good judgements for themselves.
Finally, the greatest satisfaction I’ve had in politics is to have been able to help thousands of individuals and hundreds of communities in ways almost no other occupation can make possible. That is an opportunity that you, as members of your communities, have given me and I thank you all for that.
My valedictory speech can be found here.
To view the interview on The Nation with Sean Plunket go here.
To hear the Focus on Politics podcast, go here.
To see the TV3 news clip, go here.
MMP: A better system than before
In a little over a month voters will get to have a say in the future of New Zealand’s electoral system with a referendum on representation systems being held in conjunction with the general election.
Broken election promises by previous governments coupled with the blatant unfairness of the First-Past-the-Post electoral system led to the introduction of the current MMP system in 1996, and it has resulted in some pretty important changes.
I remember 93 percent of the population was against the sale of Telecom in 1990, and Richard Prebble told parliament at the time that “New Zealand was lucky to have a government of such courage that it would stand up to a lobby group like that.” It was no wonder that people rebelled against an electoral system that delivered such outcomes, and in choosing MMP they made the right decision.
Consider this. Between 1853 and 1984 there were 1102 MPs elected to parliament. Only 25 of them were women. Currently there are 38 women in this parliament; more than were elected in the previous 131 years. There are also more young, Maori, Asian and representatives of different religious persuasions.
Another breakthrough has been the power and scrutiny of select committees. Almost every piece of legislation now goes to select committee, the most democratic process of all Commonwealth Parliament as far as I know. Select committees are also now often chaired by opposition MPs, so it is much more difficult for the government to control them.
Importantly, MMP has broken the back of the old two-party stranglehold and nowadays political parties are required to work with each other more constructively. There is no doubt that the old adversarial nature of politics has lessened.
If I was to offer one piece of advice, it would be to vote to retain MMP in this year’s referendum. Believe me, it has certainly improved parliamentary representation and it would be a real backwards move to go back to the old system.
And as I leave parliament, here is a final note of encouragement to you all. I have always believed that every citizen should stand for public office in their lifetime because it would create a much better understanding of the democratic process and a much healthier respect for politics and parliament.
The culture of success
Throughout my years in politics I’ve been driven by the desire to make sure every New Zealander has the opportunity and security that a well-paid, satisfying job brings, that everyone has access to the essentials of a strong community such as health care, education, affordable quality housing and a decent standard of living in retirement.
If we want these things, however, we need a strong economy capable of sustaining them, and my message is that it is our agricultural and horticultural industries have the potential to create jobs and prosperity throughout the regions of New Zealand.
Over the last four decades, our economy has been struggling to pay for what we want, and we’ve been slipping behind the rest of the developed world. Although our markets and our exports have changed, we still haven’t created enough of the high-value, high-skill innovation-led businesses we need. The main reason for this is that we don’t have enough investment in science and innovation to lift the productivity of our economy.
Agriculture is probably the most scientifically advanced of all our industries. Our primary industries have the scale, sophistication and the underlying science advantage to be a springboard for much greater things.
Everywhere you look around the world where economies have been successfully transformed to the benefit of their people and their communities, the pattern has been the same. It has been, without exception, where the government has worked alongside industry.
Yet, uncomfortable as it is for many people, especially in business, support for innovation in New Zealand has become a fault line between differing political philosophies. The current government wiped out a two billion public-private partnership in scientific research as soon as it got elected. A tax credit for research and development worth a billion dollars over three years was cancelled, and all this took place without much of a squeak, specifically from the business community itself.
This was nonsensical. We need innovation, talent and a culture that embeds innovation into the boardroom. And so we need a culture of creativity and success that celebrates and inspires the creation of new industry.
This was part of a speech given to the Conference of the New Zealand Institute of Agricultural and Horticultural Science at Te Papa on 04 October 2011.
The good, bad and ugly of parliamentary politics – with Jim Anderton and Simon Power
The ASPG Seminar in Parliament
The Good
The MMP environment has meant a far more diverse group of representatives. Between 1853 and 1984 there were 1102 MPs elected to the NZ House of Representatives. Only 25 of them were women. Currently there are 38 women in this parliament, - more than were elected in a total of 131 years and there are also more Maori, as well as Asian, and Pacific MPs. Parliament now, is more like New Zealand now.
So MMP was the right choice for New Zealand.
Another breakthrough has been the power and scrutiny of select committees. Almost every piece of legislation goes to select committee – the most democratic process of all Commonwealth Parliament as far as I know. Even the video surveillance legislation this month went to select committee at the very end of this term, when the Government wanted the Bill passed within days. The consultation process involved produced a bill that much better protected some ancient civil liberties; even though I’m sure it frustrated the Government. Select Committees are now often chaired by opposition MPs, so it is much more difficult for the government to control them.
When I chaired the sub-committee of the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee in 1984 we started an inquiry into the post-election devaluation. The government called it off after pressure from Treasury and the Reserve Bank by ordering the government members of the committee, to vote to cancel the enquiry. Ironically, the minister who gave that order was the same person who had written the book ‘Unbridled Power’ about the excessive use of political power by the executive over parliament. That couldn’t happen now.
The Bad
We have lobbying of minor parties by vested interests, who play each off against the others. One example - in 2008, as Minister of Fisheries I needed to amend the Fisheries Act following a court decision which put at risk the sustainability of our fisheries and to make it clear that the fishery should not be depleted by the way it was fished. Vested commercial interests spent a lot of time and resource lobbying first the Maori Party, then NZ First, and other parties. None wanted to be out-flanked by the Maori Party.
So we ended up with a law no one could intellectually defend because of the influence a few commercial interests had over minor parties.
So no system of government is perfect!
The Ugly
The defections of list MPs from the parties they were elected to represent have largely diminished now, but waka jumping gave MMP a very bad reputation. It was made too easy and even encouraged.
The adversarial nature of politics in the debating chamber is the ugly face of parliamentary politics most often displayed by the media to the people of New Zealand. It is not the reality of the overwhelming majority of the work of politicians at electorate, select committee, caucus or ministerial level in New Zealand politics.
New Zealanders would be better informed and have a different view of politics and politicians in their country if they were presented with a more balanced view of this reality.
Being elected as an MP to the Parliament of New Zealand is hard to do and happens to very few of our citizens. Since 1853 when our first parliament met with 36 MPs and the population of New Zealand was approximately 92,000, there have only been 1,365 MPs elected up until 2011 (158 years), with our population standing now at 4,416,324.
I have always believed that every citizen should stand for public office in their lifetime because it would create a much better understanding of the democratic process and a much healthier respect for politics and Parliament. But I’m not holding my breath!
Jim's E-News September
09/09/11 15:05
John Key Fact Free
The ability of Prime Minister John Key to rewrite history and make things up as he goes is something that, despite my years in politics, continues to astound me.
On TVNZ’s Breakfast programme recently, John Key told interviewer Corin Dann that a law that I had passed to increase the price of sherry had the consequence of putting fortified wine manufacturers in his electorate out of business and causing grandmothers to move from their regular tipple of sherry to low-priced vodka. Key went on to tell Dann that increasing prices did not affect alcohol consumption.
In his comments, Key cynically ignored the fact that the law change, which, incidentally, I promoted on behalf of Labour’s Rick Barker, who was Minister of Customs but out of New Zealand at the time, the removal of a highly lethal product from the shelves of liquor outlets. It wasn’t Grandma’s sherry that was the target of the legislation, it was the so-called light spirits with an alcohol content of 23% or more. The law change was aimed at those selling high octane drinks to kids. Those drinks included vodka, gin, whiskey, and brandy. And the law change worked. Using price control to remove a literally lethal cocktail product aimed at young binge drinkers was a complete success. It reduced the sale of ‘light’ spirits by more than 80% and has virtually knocked them out of the market.
Although the cost of alcohol-related harm to New Zealand is in the order of $2 billion to $3 billion a year, Mr Key is trying to argue that the problem is binge-drinking restricted mostly to the young. He is wrong; alcohol abuse is a widespread problem, with 700,000 New Zealanders drinking too heavily with 60% of all police arrests involving the abuse of alcohol.
While John Key’s stance is one that alarms me, as is that of the media which fawns over his every word while failing to investigate the accuracy of his assertions. Key’s calculated use of his populist appeal, while pushing through legislation and policies that will ultimately harm our society, shows one thing; that John Key doesn’t actually care about people. He doesn’t really care about the ‘grandmas’ or binge-drinking teens, or the harm that the misuse of alcohol causes. What he revealed to Dann on the Breakfast programme was his true motivation; that of defending those people who manufacture cheap booze and cause misery to others in order to make themselves rich.
Transcript of the TVNZ interview with the PM.
My response.
Ministerial statement at the time.
Megan Woods endorsed for Wigram
It is now less than one month until I give my farewell, or valedictory, speech to Parliament, marking an end to my 27 years as the MP for Wigram and, before that, Sydenham. My speech is scheduled to be held at 5.45 pm on Tuesday 4 October and will be one of my last official duties in Parliament before getting back on the campaign trail, this time to help Labour’s Megan Woods.
While it will be unusual to campaign for someone else in “my” seat, I want to ensure that Megan is elected with a strong majority in order that she has a clear mandate to carry on the work that I have been doing. To that end, I have sent a personal letter to more than 28,000 households in the Wigram electorate endorsing Megan’s candidacy and urging constituents to vote for her.
John Key’s National Government, if re-elected in November, will cut Kiwisaver and Working for Families, reduce eligibility for such things as student loans and sell off state-owned assets. Undoubtedly Kiwibank will eventually be “on the block” and these are the very things I have spent my political career building and protecting. I want to leave Parliament safe in the knowledge that I will be handing over to some-one who will fight for these things just as I have done, and I trust Megan to do that.
Megan has been an important member of my own campaign team over the past 12 years and I know she has the skills, experience and ability to be a good MP and so it is very satisfying to be handing over responsibility to someone I know well and am confident will carry on what I hope has been a high-quality electorate service. In fact, her selection has made my decision to retire easier knowing that she has the qualities necessary to take over and be another hard working MP for Wigram.
Residents protest against liquor licenses
I recently addressed a protest rally by residents of Avonhead in Christchurch opposed to the granting of new licenses to discount liquor outlets in the area. These proposed outlets are in close proximity to student hostels and flats, the University of Canterbury and two secondary schools.
The stupidity of the licensing situation is illustrated in one of the applications where the authorities accept that another liquor outlet could only exacerbate existing liquor problems, but then went on to say they were not persuaded that the outlet’s car park and streets in the immediate area were likely to become venues for drinking.
In reaching their conclusion, the authorities were evidently not aware of, nor took into account, a number of significant, long-standing problems in the area caused by student drinking. Such has been the problem that, in April this year, the Christchurch City Council issued a temporary six-month public alcohol ban in this area. Since the ban has been in place there has continued to be a number of incidents, most recently an out-of-control party tied up all available police resources in Christchurch and which the police described as “highly dangerous”. So bad is the situation that local councillors have called for the temporary liquor ban to be made permanent.
The Council did not implement the current ban without reason. Vandalism, assaults and other crime caused through alcohol abuse has been prevalent in the area for decades, and the problem has been getting worse, not better. It defies belief to think that those authorities granting the resource consent could not have been aware of the extent of the alcohol problem in the area. To acknowledge that the granting of another licence could exacerbate the problem, but then not to be persuaded that the local streets in the immediate area would not become venues for drinking, ignores both history and logic.
The other point to note is that cheap liquor outlets regularly engage in alcohol promotion including the sale of discounted liquor. While they deny selling alcohol as a loss leader, many of the prices are extraordinarily low, with wine often being sold in supermarkets at less than half the normal retail price.
Again, it flies in the face of research and historical evidence to believe that students will not take advantage of discounted prices, particularly when cheap alcohol is available effectively on their own doorsteps.
My speech to the rally can be found here.
From the community organisers.
ECE funding cuts blot Minister’s copybook
If there are some things that defy belief, one would be the rise of education minister, Anne Tolley on the National Party list. Her climb, from 10 to 8 belies the disaster she has wreaked on the education portfolio.
Believing she knows more than the education profession, Minister Tolley forced the unpopular national standards onto schools before attempting to introduce changes to the early childhood sector that would have seen funding cuts to Playcentres of almost two-thirds of their entire budgets. An Early Childhood Education Taskforce, set up by Tolley, recommended that Playcentres be reclassified with the effect that they would lose 63 per cent of their funding.
At a rally, originally planned as a protest against the proposed cuts, I told parents and supporters that Playcentres are unique in the early childhood sector, differing from kindergartens and early childcare centres in that parents are directly involved in the care and education of their children. Playcentres offer parents a supportive environment to help educate their children because the centres act as community hubs, virtual extended families, offering help, guidance, mentoring and support when parents need it most. And because Playcentres involve parents in the running of their centres across New Zealand, they can offer affordable childcare.
Playcentres are the heart of Kiwi communities, and in some rural areas are often the only childcare available to families. The Government’s ECE Taskforce recommendation for funding cuts threatens the very survival of those Playcentres simply because they don’t fit into its current thinking.
On the Wednesday before the planned protest march, Anne Tolley was adamant the Government would not move on its plans, but within 24 hours she had abandoned that stance and was telling the media that there was no risk to funding. Perhaps the change of heart was because it is election year.
My message to the Playcentre supporters was that, if Anne Tolley can change her mind so quickly to appease them, she can just as easily change it back again.
My speech to the rally can be found here.
Farewell to Sir Paul
It was with great sadness that I joined many others last month in farewelling former Governor General Sir Paul Reeves.
Sir Paul’s appointment as Governor General was so obviously different to previous appointments in number of ways and he helped bring New Zealand into a new era. He was the first Maori appointed to the position, and the first to come from outside traditional diplomatic and legal circles. Importantly, he had a highly developed sense of social awareness and was not afraid to express his views.
Sir Paul was our first Governor General to have grown up after the great depression of the thirties and, like so many others who came of age in that time, he was influenced by the change it made to New Zealand and the way we think about ourselves. Throughout his life he identified with social and economic justice.
Always able to make his point effectively, Sir Paul could always cause people to pause and take stock, but without giving offence. That may have been because he came from a modest family background himself and never allowed himself to forget that.
Sir Paul knew from simply growing up and looking around that economic adversity and social exclusion can wound deeply, and that we must give everyone born into our communities as equal as possible a start in life, the sort of fair go society that most New Zealanders want to live in, and which is one of our most admirable achievements.
Sir Paul spoke out against the inequality between rich and poor, and against racial division. Neither was he afraid to push the limits of his constitutional position and its conventions and to make himself felt in political areas where his predecessors would have been reluctant to tread.
Above all else, Paul Reeves wore his talents lightly because he had that one thing which marks out those who serve us best; his modesty. Truly with his passing a mighty totara has fallen.
Release
Sea-change needed for New Zealand fishing industry
A change in the way we fish will reap dividends for the fishing industry and boost “Brand ‘New Zealand” if we can reverse current practices and industry thinking particularly by upskilling workers and addressing a number of outmoded industry practices that have dumbed-down our fishing industry.
I spoke recently in support of a petition from The Service and Food Workers’ Union to Parliament’s Primary Production Select Committee, urging a change in focus from treating seafood as a commodity to recognising our high quality wild fisheries as the ideal environment to produce a high premium product.
Too much of the fishing industry has compromised quality in favour of quantity in order to reap higher short-term dividends by treating seafood as a commodity. By going for volume, quality is lost which has resulted in low prices, widespread job losses and the devaluation of the enormous potential of our fishing industry.
There is no high value future in high-volume pulverised fishmeat caught in huge nets. The prices we are currently attracting for this product are no incentive to develop the high quality, high value fishing industry that New Zealand needs.
New Zealand has one of the most valuable wild fisheries in the world and we should expect to earn a sizable export premium from it.
Discerning chefs and restaurateurs will pay top dollar for fresh line-caught fish. We stand to gain significant market premiums for our fish exports if we can assure customers of high quality and sustainable practices that are the hallmarks of New Zealand food exports.
The current focus on using cheap foreign labour and bulk fishing is to the detriment of our fishing industry and risks giving New Zealand a bad reputation if it continues.
Meanwhile, interested parties have been invited to lodge written submissions with a Ministerial Panel inquiring into Foreign Charter Vessels fishing in New Zealand's Exclusive Economic Zone. The Panel will be reviewing New Zealand's current policy and legislation as well as the economic return New Zealand is getting from our fishing resources.
The Inquiry Panel, which will hold public hearings in Auckland, Wellington, Nelson and Christchurch in October as well as visiting fishing vessels, will report its findings and recommendations to the Ministers of Fisheries and Labour on 24 February 2012.
Submissions close on Friday 7 October.
Further information about the Inquiry, including the Panel's terms of reference, can be found at www.fish.govt.nz
The ability of Prime Minister John Key to rewrite history and make things up as he goes is something that, despite my years in politics, continues to astound me.
On TVNZ’s Breakfast programme recently, John Key told interviewer Corin Dann that a law that I had passed to increase the price of sherry had the consequence of putting fortified wine manufacturers in his electorate out of business and causing grandmothers to move from their regular tipple of sherry to low-priced vodka. Key went on to tell Dann that increasing prices did not affect alcohol consumption.
In his comments, Key cynically ignored the fact that the law change, which, incidentally, I promoted on behalf of Labour’s Rick Barker, who was Minister of Customs but out of New Zealand at the time, the removal of a highly lethal product from the shelves of liquor outlets. It wasn’t Grandma’s sherry that was the target of the legislation, it was the so-called light spirits with an alcohol content of 23% or more. The law change was aimed at those selling high octane drinks to kids. Those drinks included vodka, gin, whiskey, and brandy. And the law change worked. Using price control to remove a literally lethal cocktail product aimed at young binge drinkers was a complete success. It reduced the sale of ‘light’ spirits by more than 80% and has virtually knocked them out of the market.
Although the cost of alcohol-related harm to New Zealand is in the order of $2 billion to $3 billion a year, Mr Key is trying to argue that the problem is binge-drinking restricted mostly to the young. He is wrong; alcohol abuse is a widespread problem, with 700,000 New Zealanders drinking too heavily with 60% of all police arrests involving the abuse of alcohol.
While John Key’s stance is one that alarms me, as is that of the media which fawns over his every word while failing to investigate the accuracy of his assertions. Key’s calculated use of his populist appeal, while pushing through legislation and policies that will ultimately harm our society, shows one thing; that John Key doesn’t actually care about people. He doesn’t really care about the ‘grandmas’ or binge-drinking teens, or the harm that the misuse of alcohol causes. What he revealed to Dann on the Breakfast programme was his true motivation; that of defending those people who manufacture cheap booze and cause misery to others in order to make themselves rich.
Transcript of the TVNZ interview with the PM.
My response.
Ministerial statement at the time.
Megan Woods endorsed for Wigram
It is now less than one month until I give my farewell, or valedictory, speech to Parliament, marking an end to my 27 years as the MP for Wigram and, before that, Sydenham. My speech is scheduled to be held at 5.45 pm on Tuesday 4 October and will be one of my last official duties in Parliament before getting back on the campaign trail, this time to help Labour’s Megan Woods.
While it will be unusual to campaign for someone else in “my” seat, I want to ensure that Megan is elected with a strong majority in order that she has a clear mandate to carry on the work that I have been doing. To that end, I have sent a personal letter to more than 28,000 households in the Wigram electorate endorsing Megan’s candidacy and urging constituents to vote for her.
John Key’s National Government, if re-elected in November, will cut Kiwisaver and Working for Families, reduce eligibility for such things as student loans and sell off state-owned assets. Undoubtedly Kiwibank will eventually be “on the block” and these are the very things I have spent my political career building and protecting. I want to leave Parliament safe in the knowledge that I will be handing over to some-one who will fight for these things just as I have done, and I trust Megan to do that.
Megan has been an important member of my own campaign team over the past 12 years and I know she has the skills, experience and ability to be a good MP and so it is very satisfying to be handing over responsibility to someone I know well and am confident will carry on what I hope has been a high-quality electorate service. In fact, her selection has made my decision to retire easier knowing that she has the qualities necessary to take over and be another hard working MP for Wigram.
Residents protest against liquor licenses
I recently addressed a protest rally by residents of Avonhead in Christchurch opposed to the granting of new licenses to discount liquor outlets in the area. These proposed outlets are in close proximity to student hostels and flats, the University of Canterbury and two secondary schools.
The stupidity of the licensing situation is illustrated in one of the applications where the authorities accept that another liquor outlet could only exacerbate existing liquor problems, but then went on to say they were not persuaded that the outlet’s car park and streets in the immediate area were likely to become venues for drinking.
In reaching their conclusion, the authorities were evidently not aware of, nor took into account, a number of significant, long-standing problems in the area caused by student drinking. Such has been the problem that, in April this year, the Christchurch City Council issued a temporary six-month public alcohol ban in this area. Since the ban has been in place there has continued to be a number of incidents, most recently an out-of-control party tied up all available police resources in Christchurch and which the police described as “highly dangerous”. So bad is the situation that local councillors have called for the temporary liquor ban to be made permanent.
The Council did not implement the current ban without reason. Vandalism, assaults and other crime caused through alcohol abuse has been prevalent in the area for decades, and the problem has been getting worse, not better. It defies belief to think that those authorities granting the resource consent could not have been aware of the extent of the alcohol problem in the area. To acknowledge that the granting of another licence could exacerbate the problem, but then not to be persuaded that the local streets in the immediate area would not become venues for drinking, ignores both history and logic.
The other point to note is that cheap liquor outlets regularly engage in alcohol promotion including the sale of discounted liquor. While they deny selling alcohol as a loss leader, many of the prices are extraordinarily low, with wine often being sold in supermarkets at less than half the normal retail price.
Again, it flies in the face of research and historical evidence to believe that students will not take advantage of discounted prices, particularly when cheap alcohol is available effectively on their own doorsteps.
My speech to the rally can be found here.
From the community organisers.
ECE funding cuts blot Minister’s copybook
If there are some things that defy belief, one would be the rise of education minister, Anne Tolley on the National Party list. Her climb, from 10 to 8 belies the disaster she has wreaked on the education portfolio.
Believing she knows more than the education profession, Minister Tolley forced the unpopular national standards onto schools before attempting to introduce changes to the early childhood sector that would have seen funding cuts to Playcentres of almost two-thirds of their entire budgets. An Early Childhood Education Taskforce, set up by Tolley, recommended that Playcentres be reclassified with the effect that they would lose 63 per cent of their funding.
At a rally, originally planned as a protest against the proposed cuts, I told parents and supporters that Playcentres are unique in the early childhood sector, differing from kindergartens and early childcare centres in that parents are directly involved in the care and education of their children. Playcentres offer parents a supportive environment to help educate their children because the centres act as community hubs, virtual extended families, offering help, guidance, mentoring and support when parents need it most. And because Playcentres involve parents in the running of their centres across New Zealand, they can offer affordable childcare.
Playcentres are the heart of Kiwi communities, and in some rural areas are often the only childcare available to families. The Government’s ECE Taskforce recommendation for funding cuts threatens the very survival of those Playcentres simply because they don’t fit into its current thinking.
On the Wednesday before the planned protest march, Anne Tolley was adamant the Government would not move on its plans, but within 24 hours she had abandoned that stance and was telling the media that there was no risk to funding. Perhaps the change of heart was because it is election year.
My message to the Playcentre supporters was that, if Anne Tolley can change her mind so quickly to appease them, she can just as easily change it back again.
My speech to the rally can be found here.
Farewell to Sir Paul
It was with great sadness that I joined many others last month in farewelling former Governor General Sir Paul Reeves.
Sir Paul’s appointment as Governor General was so obviously different to previous appointments in number of ways and he helped bring New Zealand into a new era. He was the first Maori appointed to the position, and the first to come from outside traditional diplomatic and legal circles. Importantly, he had a highly developed sense of social awareness and was not afraid to express his views.
Sir Paul was our first Governor General to have grown up after the great depression of the thirties and, like so many others who came of age in that time, he was influenced by the change it made to New Zealand and the way we think about ourselves. Throughout his life he identified with social and economic justice.
Always able to make his point effectively, Sir Paul could always cause people to pause and take stock, but without giving offence. That may have been because he came from a modest family background himself and never allowed himself to forget that.
Sir Paul knew from simply growing up and looking around that economic adversity and social exclusion can wound deeply, and that we must give everyone born into our communities as equal as possible a start in life, the sort of fair go society that most New Zealanders want to live in, and which is one of our most admirable achievements.
Sir Paul spoke out against the inequality between rich and poor, and against racial division. Neither was he afraid to push the limits of his constitutional position and its conventions and to make himself felt in political areas where his predecessors would have been reluctant to tread.
Above all else, Paul Reeves wore his talents lightly because he had that one thing which marks out those who serve us best; his modesty. Truly with his passing a mighty totara has fallen.
Release
Sea-change needed for New Zealand fishing industry
A change in the way we fish will reap dividends for the fishing industry and boost “Brand ‘New Zealand” if we can reverse current practices and industry thinking particularly by upskilling workers and addressing a number of outmoded industry practices that have dumbed-down our fishing industry.
I spoke recently in support of a petition from The Service and Food Workers’ Union to Parliament’s Primary Production Select Committee, urging a change in focus from treating seafood as a commodity to recognising our high quality wild fisheries as the ideal environment to produce a high premium product.
Too much of the fishing industry has compromised quality in favour of quantity in order to reap higher short-term dividends by treating seafood as a commodity. By going for volume, quality is lost which has resulted in low prices, widespread job losses and the devaluation of the enormous potential of our fishing industry.
There is no high value future in high-volume pulverised fishmeat caught in huge nets. The prices we are currently attracting for this product are no incentive to develop the high quality, high value fishing industry that New Zealand needs.
New Zealand has one of the most valuable wild fisheries in the world and we should expect to earn a sizable export premium from it.
Discerning chefs and restaurateurs will pay top dollar for fresh line-caught fish. We stand to gain significant market premiums for our fish exports if we can assure customers of high quality and sustainable practices that are the hallmarks of New Zealand food exports.
The current focus on using cheap foreign labour and bulk fishing is to the detriment of our fishing industry and risks giving New Zealand a bad reputation if it continues.
Meanwhile, interested parties have been invited to lodge written submissions with a Ministerial Panel inquiring into Foreign Charter Vessels fishing in New Zealand's Exclusive Economic Zone. The Panel will be reviewing New Zealand's current policy and legislation as well as the economic return New Zealand is getting from our fishing resources.
The Inquiry Panel, which will hold public hearings in Auckland, Wellington, Nelson and Christchurch in October as well as visiting fishing vessels, will report its findings and recommendations to the Ministers of Fisheries and Labour on 24 February 2012.
Submissions close on Friday 7 October.
Further information about the Inquiry, including the Panel's terms of reference, can be found at www.fish.govt.nz
Jim's E-News, August 2011
01/08/11 21:41
Time to take a stand against cheap liquor
Another liquor store is the last thing needed in my Wigram electorate, but it looks like this will happen if an application by Imperial Discount Liquor is granted to open a new Henry's Liquor Outlet in the Christchurch suburb of Upper Riccarton.
Three local residents’ associations are joining forces on 20 August to stage a protest against the proposed license; they’ve had enough as this area has become beset with public drinking, made worse since the closure of the inner city, post-earthquakes. Just last week, four students were arrested, cars were vandalised and police were pelted with bottles after yet another student party in Riccarton turned into what was described by police as “highly dangerous”.
What has particularly annoyed me lately is the increasing vehemence with which the alcohol lobby is attacking those who have expressed concern about the harm caused by alcohol. Both Doug Selman, from the National Addiction Centre at the University of Otago, and Ross Bell, from the New Zealand Drug Foundation, have been painted as wowsers and zealots, by an industry which appears to have resorted to name calling instead of intelligent argument.
The deadline for the reporting to Parliament of the Alcohol Reform Bill, which proposes revamping the laws around the sale and purchase of alcohol, has been pushed back until the end of August such has been the volume of submissions received by the Select Committee. Most of the submissions from lobbyists like the Hospitality Association argue that alcohol abuse should be addressed through education and by targeting the problematic minority, and that drinkers should take personal responsibility for their own actions.
While, on the surface, that might sound reasonable, it is quite the opposite and no less cynical than a tobacco industry that made similar arguments in previous times. Without doubt, the liquor industry is peddling one of the most addictive drugs in society, and one which is at the root cause of man’s social, economic and physical ills. Those who are addicted or affected are generally the least well equipped to deal with it in a responsible manner or to listen to educational messages, and the hospitality industry knows this only too well.
I often ask myself what some of those same people would say if their own children or family members became addicted to an illegal drug such as methamphetamine. Would they blame the dealers, or would they simply suggest that their own affected family member take personal responsibility? I think we know what the answer to that question is.
If you want to make a stand against the increasing number of cheap booze outlets, you can join me at the protest against the proposed Henry’s store at 1.30pm on Saturday 20 August. We will assemble at the corner of Athol and Peer Streets from 12.15pm, then walk down Peer Street to Yaldhurst Road at 1.00pm. Lianne Dalziel, Kennedy Graham and I are confirmed speakers. Professor Doug Sellman, a local of the area, will also be there.
Dunne's support for winter power rebate welcomed
I support Peter Dunne’s policy for a winter power rebate that he announced this week because ever 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 our most vulnerable citizens 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.
Mr Dunne is right to identify the seriousness of winter power needs, and the simplicity of doing something about it through a winter rebate but the policy is easier to implement if the power companies are kept in public hands. Mr Dunne is supporting National's plan to sell the power companies.
If you want the power companies to be involved in helping people, it's best if the people own them. And if they are sold, power bills are only going to rise.
Youth suicide will rise over next few years
It is not too dramatic to predict that youth suicide will increase significantly over the next two to four years as a result of shockingly high youth unemployment rates. Youth unemployment in New Zealand is currently at 27 per cent, and is among the highest levels in the developed world. High suicide rates follow high unemployment as sure as night follows day, and teenagers in New Zealand face increasing levels of unemployment, crime, and depression. As such, they are materially worse on all these scores than the average of other developed countries.In the nineties, the four peak years of youth unemployment were followed by the highest youth suicide rates in the Western world and we are set for a repeat unless strong action is taken. Our suicide rates are already at high levels, with over five hundred deaths a year and we are about to see a repeat of what occurred in the nineties, when the four peak years of youth unemployment were followed by the highest youth suicide rates in the Western world.
The NZ Institute's recently published “More Ladders, Fewer Snakes” report shows that New Zealand has the lowest median school leaving age in the OECD. Over a third of 16 year olds report being usually or always bored at school, and want to leave as soon as possible. Teenagers in New Zealand face high levels of unemployment, crime, and depression - materially worse on all these scores than the average of other developed countries.
As the NZ Institute reported, “Unemployment is central; it is an important consequence of disadvantage. Disengaged, inactive youth are at greater risk of lower earnings, needing social assistance, criminal offending, substance abuse, teenage births, suicide, homelessness and mental or physical ill health”.
The tragedy of youth unemployment is only the beginning. The Government’s choice to do nothing effective about youth unemployment will have tragic consequences.
My full statement on youth suicide can be found here, with further comments here.
Crematorium consent highlights disconnect between plans
Building a new crematorium right in the middle of a potential residential and retail area might seem quite illogical, but that is exactly what will happen if action is not taken to align the Christchurch City Plan with the Canterbury earthquake recovery strategy.Plans for the redevelopment of Sydenham, right in the heart of my old electorate, were unveiled last week and it was a refreshing look at what could be done to revitalise an old area of town which was very badly damaged, in particular during the February earthquake. After consultation with the local community, urban designers have come up with plan for a mix of retail, commercial and residential developments, with green areas and better traffic flow.
It was therefore of course, with some alarm, that local property and business owners and residents discovered that consent was given last November for an Auckland business to install a crematorium furnace, with permission to burn up to five bodies a day right in the heart of the area. The application for consent to run the business was not required to be notified by the regional authority and the type of business was consistent with current local body zoning.
The problems with this is that consent for the crematorium was approved under the existing, (and old City Plan), while planning for the revitalisation of Sydenham will require new zoning and other regulatory changes. It is a problem which will crop up repeatedly during the rebuilding phase, as property owners assert their rights to build to any current legal requirement rather than in a way which is consistent with recovery design. And it is a problem which should have been foreseen; consent for the crematorium was granted after the September earthquake, at a time when it was already known a great deal of redevelopment would be taking place nearby.
In my view it is completely undesirable to have a crematorium in a residential and retail area and I have asked the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Authority to look at the matter to see if urgent changes can be made to ensure this sort of thing does not happen again.
For the story, go here.
Funding cuts could spell end of Playcentres
Cutting funding from Playcentres makes no sense and could mean the end of this 70-year-old Kiwi institution if proposed changes to early childhood education are introduced by the National Government. An ECE Taskforce Report, commissioned by Education Minister Anne Tolley to investigate early childhood sector spending, proposes reducing Playcentre funding by 63 per cent. Under a proposed new funding mechanism in the Taskforce Report, Playcentres are classified as something called “other”, and that means drastic funding cuts.Throughout their 70 years of operation, Playcentres have provided a relatively low-cost, high-quality early childhood option for parents, and this is not something we can afford to lose. They were first set up in Wellington in 1941 to help families and communities through the war, and they are just as relevant today making a positive contribution to early childhood education.
Playcentres not only benefit children, but they show parents how to be positively involved in their children’s early childhood education, and this has been shown by research to be positive for children, their families and their communities. The Prime Minister’s own chief science advisor has continually stressed the importance of early childhood education, noting that investment in the earlier years results in less expenditure later. Ann Tolley claims that National is supportive of Playcentres, but slashing their funding by 63 per cent is a strange way to show support. Without this funding the future of Playcentres is doomed.
We cannot keep asking our communities for money when so many of the families using the centres are already struggling to make ends meet. The Minister needs to step up and show her support by rejecting the Taskforce’s recommendations and keep our Playcentres running.
Along with Megan Woods, Labour’s Wigram candidate for this year’s General Election, I will be meeting with local Playcentre administrators to do what I can to help them keep their funding.
A rally is being planned for the 7th August in Christchurch on behalf of Canterbury’s Playcentre Association.
Capital Gains Tax (CGT) finds favour
It takes a courageous political party to go into an election with a policy of introducing a new tax, so it was heartening to see Labour’s tax policies announced last month with capital gains (CGT) tax as its central theme.
A Horizon Poll released last week showed that the proposed CGT has attracted more support than opposition, with 40.9 per cent support, 34.1 opposed and 25 per cent who are either neutral or don’t know.
The Horizon Poll, the first nationwide poll conducted since the policy announcement, revealed that the 1201 people surveyed were polarised by income, property ownership and party vote. There is strong support for a CGT among Labour, Green, and New Zealand First voters and strong opposition to it among National, Act and United Future supporters.
I have always favoured a fairer, progressive tax system, and Labour’s move to increase the top tax rate, make the first $5,000 of income tax-free and to remove GST from fresh fruit and vegetables are all policies which I support.
New Zealand is one of the few countries in the world that does not have a CGT tax, and I have always thought it unfair that those, for example, with investment properties or making huge profits on the share market were not required to pay tax, while ordinary New Zealanders pay tax on every cent of income including interest earned on savings. The other problem has been that property speculators have pushed up the prices of residential houses, making it much harder for young New Zealanders to buy their first homes.
It is, therefore, no great surprise that the Horizon Poll showed that business managers, executives and farm owners show the highest opposition to a CGT, while workers, professionals, superannuitants and senior Government officials show a high level of support.
The Horizon Poll can be found here.
For details of the tax, go here.
For comment, go here.
New Zealand by Design
In late July I was fortunate enough to be invited to address the launch of a new book, New Zealand by Design, a history of New Zealand product design, written by Michael Smythe. The book deals with product design, beginning in pre-European times and then moving to pioneer-era inventions and finally to the modern era.
What I enjoyed about the book is that it celebrates the Kiwi essence in many of the things we take (or took) for granted, from Maori tools and traps, to gumboots, wool, presses, electrical appliance and even the kitchen sink.
In many cases, New Zealand’s isolation gives us the drive to innovate and to solve problems using our wits. It also gives us the freedom to try things out. That’s how the Hamilton Jet was developed, for example, and countless other kiwi problems solved. Many people refer to it as the “Number 8 wire” approach, but for me it’s not that simple. It’s the application of intellectual grunt to solve a problem and that is what, in many cases, sets New Zealanders apart.
When I set up a Ministry of Economic Development, one of our priorities in getting our economy growing and creating jobs, was to sell to the world many more products that rely on our unique skill and creativity. Because uniqueness and creativity command a premium, they are the key to lifting our incomes.
An advantage Kiwis have is that few can match our unique creativity. Design is one of the most important expressions of that. Not just styling, but the conception of how a product will be used, a view about what it is for and a unique way to bring that concept into being.
A book like Michael Smythe’s will help inspire people and make them aware of inspirational New Zealand designers, so I welcome it. It will help us to see how design made a difference to creating the New Zealand we have today.
My full speech can be found here.
Dental policy hits the mark
“What a great initiative” was typical of many message I received from people after the launch of my policy calling for the introduction of free dental care for all.The same person went on to say that they could not think of any of her friends and associates who go to the dentist for check-ups as the cost for dental work is so prohibitive. “My husband”, she said, “had a tooth removed recently and it cost $290.00 for less than a one hour appointment. We have no children at home, budget carefully and both work, but would happily pay more for fizzy drinks to subsidise this”.
She continued: “I would like to see this initiative expanded to include lollies and chocolates so they can become treat foods again. It is crazy that coke and the like cost less than milk and water”.
Similarly, the Nelson Mail reported a pregnant Motueka mother of four unable to afford to get a tooth removed and so was reduced to relying on painkillers for relief. In my view it cannot be healthy for a pregnant woman to be taking high levels of pain relief when the problem could be resolved through an extraction. As it is, if this woman is forced to go into hospital for emergency dental care, if the abscess gets too bad, the cost to the taxpayer will be even higher.
I could not help but compare the support I have had from the public for the dental policy with that of radio talkback host Mike Yardley who seemed to think it an outrage that fizzy drinks should be taxed to pay for the dental decay caused by those drinks. The problem with radio hosts such as Yardley, is that they are the very people who can afford dental care and do not have to worry about the plight of those who cannot.
Our dental policy can be found here.
Jim's E-News, June 2011
27/06/11 11:10
Dental policy, free care to all
Free dental care for all may sound like a dream, but it is something I strongly believe should be introduced as a benefit for the entire population. This week, I launched a dental policy which advocates free dental care to be made available to all people, starting with vulnerable groups such as pregnant women and those aged over 65 years, then moving to those aged between 18 and 50 and, finally, those between 50 and 65 years of age.
These steps should be supported by education, publicity and, if supported by a parliamentary select committee enquiry, the fluoridation of all drinking water.
There should also be a bonding scheme for dentists and dental hygienists who are prepared to work in rural or provincial areas where dental professionals are in short supply in return for writing off student debt over a 3 to 5 year period of service.
Good oral health should also be reinstated as a priority goal for the public health system, together with the reinstatement of the requirement that school lunch shops and cafeterias provide only healthy food for our children.
The reasoning for my policy is quite simple. More than 44 per cent of our entire population do not currently receive any form of dental care and this is set to get worse. Only 50 per cent of young New Zealanders receive dental treatment because of a lack of available service or cost and dental decay is increasing significantly, often due to poor diet and the effect of such things as sugar-loaded soft drinks. Along with obesity and diabetes, dental decay is destined to reach epidemic proportions unless something is done as a matter of urgency.
Between 2011 and 2030, many of the baby-boom generation are due to retire and because most of them have kept their natural teeth, many will get serious decay from tooth crowns and exposed tooth roots. Clearly this means that many elderly New Zealanders will need expensive dental treatment, in many cases this will be well beyond their ability to pay.
There will, of course, be questions over the cost and affordability of this policy, and I have done considerable work researching this. The total cost of universal dental care could be as high as $1 billion, but this could be funded through a levy on earnings, similar to ACC, along with a reduction in the $17.8 billion tax cuts given to the most affluent New Zealanders by the National-led government, a levy on sugary soft drinks (such as we have on tobacco or alcohol), or a mix of all these possible sources of funds.
It is not that difficult and I hope that this policy will be promoted across the political spectrum and be an issue for debate during this years’ general election campaign.
Full details can be found here.
Christchurch CEO appointment process contaminated
If ever a process looked contaminated, it is that being followed for the recruitment and appointment of a new chief executive of the Christchurch City Council, and it is high time the process was abandoned and started afresh.
To cap what has already been a controversial course of events, the Council has restricted advertising for its chief executive position to seventeen days, and included in the advertisement that the current chief executive ,Tony Marryatt, is applying for a further five years in the job. It sends a clear message to other potential candidates that they need not bother applying.
There are a number of troubling aspects to the current process, none less so than Mayor Bob Parker silencing council members from expressing a view on Marryatt’s performance, by saying that it could expose the Council to legal action, but then publicly proclaiming his own support.
Marryatt, Parker said, was the best chief executive he had ever worked with, before being reported in The Press as threatening to resign if Marryatt was not re-appointed. He then apparently went on to ask each member of council individually, in front of the others, whether they personally supported Marryatt. Attempting to silence, then badger, elected members of Council is not part of a healthy, democratic employment process, for any position, let alone such an important one as this.
Add to this mix, the curious position where prominent business people, led by Chamber of Commerce and Solid Energy bosses, respectively Peter Townsend and Don Elder, published an open letter setting out the qualities they felt were needed in a chief executive to lead our city. According to Townsend and Elder, the sentiments expressed in the letter were a mild version of the discussion within their Chamber. Since then, others have added their voices, with a collection of "very influential businessmen" and public office-holders expressing "a considerable amount of dissatisfaction" with Marryatt's performance
Something is amiss here, and I cannot help but draw the conclusion that this recruitment and appointment process cannot continue. This appointment is not something that has to be rushed, and it is imperative that Christchurch has a chief executive who can unite the city and inspire confidence in tackling the very important tasks which lie ahead.
Maori suicide prevention
This week I was fortunate enough to speak to the Kia Piki te Ora national hui, although perhaps the word fortunate is not quite the right as the discussion was on suicide prevention. Alarmingly, around 500 New Zealanders each year commit suicide, that’s ten a week and, of that number, suicide among Maori is the highest of any demographic group.
I know that researchers have identified a high risk factor for Maori in attempted suicide among those who are not connected to their Maori heritage and Maoritanga. Other major factors include poor general health, the use of drugs, including alcohol, and, especially cannabis, and the number of suicides is high among those who have been the victims of abuse.
While suicide figures still remain too high, it is not to say that nothing has been done to deal with the issue. Suicide rates have dropped by around 25 per cent since a peak in the nineties and, while I was the Minister responsible for suicide prevention policies, the then Labour-Progressive government funded research into an all-ages suicide prevention as part of a suicide strategy.
While I was Minister, we ran the hugely successful John Kirwan advertisements that encouraged people who were depressed to seek help. We also launched a website, thelowdown.co.nz, where kids could go and find out about how to get help, and that was also effective.
When we talk about Maori suicide, we need to talk about adapting tools that work for individuals, and not thinking that one solution fits everyone. And we need to be committed enough and tough enough to implement our strategies, because not all of them will be popular.
Every single suicide is a tragedy, and I understand the distress and hurt of those who lose their loved ones. A caring country needs to respond when it sees a problem such as this. We need to make a difference if we want to create a society where New Zealanders feel valued and nurtured, where we care for each other and where we value lives.
My full speech to the Kia Piki Te Ora national hui can be found here.
Privatising ACC will lead to higher costs
Those who believe the rhetoric that privatising workplace accident insurance and open up ACC to competition will cut costs and provide a better, more efficient system need only look to Australia to see the opposite is the case.
An independent report by PriceWaterhouseCoopers in Sydney in 2008 showed that ACC costs in New Zealand, at around 0.8 per cent of wages, are substantially lower than the Australian average of 2 per cent of wages. ACC costs for farmers are much lower in New Zealand than in Australia.
It is inevitable that insurance premiums will rise for businesses and farmers when ACC workplace coverage is privatised, but worse than that, taxpayers could end up on the hook for another AMI-style bailout
There will be little to stop those same Australian insurance companies coming over here and underfunding their liabilities, which is what happened in 1998, when HIH went under with billions of dollars of liabilities that had to be picked up by Australian taxpayers.
In New Zealand, taxpayers are today on the hook for up to a billion dollars because AMI didn’t carry enough reinsurance and regulators were never warned of a problem. Why would workplace insurance be any different?
My press release can be found here.
Live animal exports banned from Australia
It isn’t often that Australians admit to being behind New Zealand, but earlier this month I was interviewed by ABC, the Australian national broadcasting corporation, about the banning of live animal exports. The Australian Government recently banned live cattle exports to Indonesia after revelations of cruelty to those Australian cattle in Indonesian abattoirs.
In this case it has taken the Australians some time to catch up with New Zealand’s lead and, in particular, the ABC was interested in the consequences to New Zealand’s economy of banning live animal exports for slaughter.
What happened in New Zealand is that most live animal exporting stopped in 2003, but it was finally brought to a complete end in 2007, after I intervened over the planned export of live cattle to Korea.
I was able to tell the ABC reporter that, although many farmers opposed the live export ban in 2003, by 2007 most of the agricultural industry in New Zealand supported the ban for a number of obvious reasons. These ranged from concerns about animal welfare to the potential reputational and economic backlash as consumers in other countries stopped buying New Zealand meat they believed was being transported and killed through inhumane processes.
But aside from the issues of animal welfare, I was concerned that sending live animals overseas represented the lowest form of commodity export. When asked by the interviewer whether there had been an economic backlash to the banning of live animals for slaughter, I looked to Indonesia as an example. New Zealand currently exports high quality, processed meat cuts to Indonesia, so it would make no sense at all for us to send them live animals. Shifting the processing from New Zealand to Indonesia would simply export our jobs and reduce the benefit to the New Zealand economy. There is nothing to be gained and plenty to lose by sending live animals overseas in this manner.
The full interview can be heard at: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/saturdayextra/stories/2011/3245820.htm
Family violence must be stopped
If I was to look at one alarming crime statistic, it would be that half of the homicides in New Zealand each year are the result of family violence. And it I was to look at another, 70,000 physical, including sexual, assaults take place every year. That is 1350 recorded assaults each week, or 172 each day, and, whatever way you look at it that is unacceptable.
Police believe they only hear about one in five family violence incidents. And they respond to one somewhere in New Zealand every seven minutes, meaning, literally hardly a minute goes by when there isn’t a family assault.
At a recent hui at Tapu te Ranga marae in Wellington, I told the audience that the only way we are going to make a substantial difference in reducing domestic violence is to front up to the extent of the problem.
The causes of domestic violence are multiple and complex, but there are some plain differences we can make. To start with, if people believe that violence has taken place (or is taking place), then they have a responsibility to act. It is no longer “just a domestic” as it was called when I grew up in New Zealand.
There is one common factor affecting sixty per cent of people who are arrested for violence and other criminal acts; alcohol. Alcohol, unarguably, is the most serious drug in terms of influencing violent and criminal behaviour in NZ and that’s the context in which ten kids a year are killed by a member of their own family.
Ninety per cent of people in prison have drug and alcohol abuse problems, and if we want to reduce the level of crime and particularly violence in New Zealand, the fastest way we can make a difference, and the biggest difference we can make, would be to make alcohol less available.
And that is just as true of family violence as it is for any other crime. The best law changes I can think of to assist tackling these problems would be to put up the price of alcohol, reduce the drink driving limits and raise the drinking age. That would be a good, practical and effective first step.
Free dental care for all may sound like a dream, but it is something I strongly believe should be introduced as a benefit for the entire population. This week, I launched a dental policy which advocates free dental care to be made available to all people, starting with vulnerable groups such as pregnant women and those aged over 65 years, then moving to those aged between 18 and 50 and, finally, those between 50 and 65 years of age.
These steps should be supported by education, publicity and, if supported by a parliamentary select committee enquiry, the fluoridation of all drinking water.
There should also be a bonding scheme for dentists and dental hygienists who are prepared to work in rural or provincial areas where dental professionals are in short supply in return for writing off student debt over a 3 to 5 year period of service.
Good oral health should also be reinstated as a priority goal for the public health system, together with the reinstatement of the requirement that school lunch shops and cafeterias provide only healthy food for our children.
The reasoning for my policy is quite simple. More than 44 per cent of our entire population do not currently receive any form of dental care and this is set to get worse. Only 50 per cent of young New Zealanders receive dental treatment because of a lack of available service or cost and dental decay is increasing significantly, often due to poor diet and the effect of such things as sugar-loaded soft drinks. Along with obesity and diabetes, dental decay is destined to reach epidemic proportions unless something is done as a matter of urgency.
Between 2011 and 2030, many of the baby-boom generation are due to retire and because most of them have kept their natural teeth, many will get serious decay from tooth crowns and exposed tooth roots. Clearly this means that many elderly New Zealanders will need expensive dental treatment, in many cases this will be well beyond their ability to pay.
There will, of course, be questions over the cost and affordability of this policy, and I have done considerable work researching this. The total cost of universal dental care could be as high as $1 billion, but this could be funded through a levy on earnings, similar to ACC, along with a reduction in the $17.8 billion tax cuts given to the most affluent New Zealanders by the National-led government, a levy on sugary soft drinks (such as we have on tobacco or alcohol), or a mix of all these possible sources of funds.
It is not that difficult and I hope that this policy will be promoted across the political spectrum and be an issue for debate during this years’ general election campaign.
Full details can be found here.
Christchurch CEO appointment process contaminated
If ever a process looked contaminated, it is that being followed for the recruitment and appointment of a new chief executive of the Christchurch City Council, and it is high time the process was abandoned and started afresh.
To cap what has already been a controversial course of events, the Council has restricted advertising for its chief executive position to seventeen days, and included in the advertisement that the current chief executive ,Tony Marryatt, is applying for a further five years in the job. It sends a clear message to other potential candidates that they need not bother applying.
There are a number of troubling aspects to the current process, none less so than Mayor Bob Parker silencing council members from expressing a view on Marryatt’s performance, by saying that it could expose the Council to legal action, but then publicly proclaiming his own support.
Marryatt, Parker said, was the best chief executive he had ever worked with, before being reported in The Press as threatening to resign if Marryatt was not re-appointed. He then apparently went on to ask each member of council individually, in front of the others, whether they personally supported Marryatt. Attempting to silence, then badger, elected members of Council is not part of a healthy, democratic employment process, for any position, let alone such an important one as this.
Add to this mix, the curious position where prominent business people, led by Chamber of Commerce and Solid Energy bosses, respectively Peter Townsend and Don Elder, published an open letter setting out the qualities they felt were needed in a chief executive to lead our city. According to Townsend and Elder, the sentiments expressed in the letter were a mild version of the discussion within their Chamber. Since then, others have added their voices, with a collection of "very influential businessmen" and public office-holders expressing "a considerable amount of dissatisfaction" with Marryatt's performance
Something is amiss here, and I cannot help but draw the conclusion that this recruitment and appointment process cannot continue. This appointment is not something that has to be rushed, and it is imperative that Christchurch has a chief executive who can unite the city and inspire confidence in tackling the very important tasks which lie ahead.
Maori suicide prevention
This week I was fortunate enough to speak to the Kia Piki te Ora national hui, although perhaps the word fortunate is not quite the right as the discussion was on suicide prevention. Alarmingly, around 500 New Zealanders each year commit suicide, that’s ten a week and, of that number, suicide among Maori is the highest of any demographic group.
I know that researchers have identified a high risk factor for Maori in attempted suicide among those who are not connected to their Maori heritage and Maoritanga. Other major factors include poor general health, the use of drugs, including alcohol, and, especially cannabis, and the number of suicides is high among those who have been the victims of abuse.
While suicide figures still remain too high, it is not to say that nothing has been done to deal with the issue. Suicide rates have dropped by around 25 per cent since a peak in the nineties and, while I was the Minister responsible for suicide prevention policies, the then Labour-Progressive government funded research into an all-ages suicide prevention as part of a suicide strategy.
While I was Minister, we ran the hugely successful John Kirwan advertisements that encouraged people who were depressed to seek help. We also launched a website, thelowdown.co.nz, where kids could go and find out about how to get help, and that was also effective.
When we talk about Maori suicide, we need to talk about adapting tools that work for individuals, and not thinking that one solution fits everyone. And we need to be committed enough and tough enough to implement our strategies, because not all of them will be popular.
Every single suicide is a tragedy, and I understand the distress and hurt of those who lose their loved ones. A caring country needs to respond when it sees a problem such as this. We need to make a difference if we want to create a society where New Zealanders feel valued and nurtured, where we care for each other and where we value lives.
My full speech to the Kia Piki Te Ora national hui can be found here.
Privatising ACC will lead to higher costs
Those who believe the rhetoric that privatising workplace accident insurance and open up ACC to competition will cut costs and provide a better, more efficient system need only look to Australia to see the opposite is the case.
An independent report by PriceWaterhouseCoopers in Sydney in 2008 showed that ACC costs in New Zealand, at around 0.8 per cent of wages, are substantially lower than the Australian average of 2 per cent of wages. ACC costs for farmers are much lower in New Zealand than in Australia.
It is inevitable that insurance premiums will rise for businesses and farmers when ACC workplace coverage is privatised, but worse than that, taxpayers could end up on the hook for another AMI-style bailout
There will be little to stop those same Australian insurance companies coming over here and underfunding their liabilities, which is what happened in 1998, when HIH went under with billions of dollars of liabilities that had to be picked up by Australian taxpayers.
In New Zealand, taxpayers are today on the hook for up to a billion dollars because AMI didn’t carry enough reinsurance and regulators were never warned of a problem. Why would workplace insurance be any different?
My press release can be found here.
Live animal exports banned from Australia
It isn’t often that Australians admit to being behind New Zealand, but earlier this month I was interviewed by ABC, the Australian national broadcasting corporation, about the banning of live animal exports. The Australian Government recently banned live cattle exports to Indonesia after revelations of cruelty to those Australian cattle in Indonesian abattoirs.
In this case it has taken the Australians some time to catch up with New Zealand’s lead and, in particular, the ABC was interested in the consequences to New Zealand’s economy of banning live animal exports for slaughter.
What happened in New Zealand is that most live animal exporting stopped in 2003, but it was finally brought to a complete end in 2007, after I intervened over the planned export of live cattle to Korea.
I was able to tell the ABC reporter that, although many farmers opposed the live export ban in 2003, by 2007 most of the agricultural industry in New Zealand supported the ban for a number of obvious reasons. These ranged from concerns about animal welfare to the potential reputational and economic backlash as consumers in other countries stopped buying New Zealand meat they believed was being transported and killed through inhumane processes.
But aside from the issues of animal welfare, I was concerned that sending live animals overseas represented the lowest form of commodity export. When asked by the interviewer whether there had been an economic backlash to the banning of live animals for slaughter, I looked to Indonesia as an example. New Zealand currently exports high quality, processed meat cuts to Indonesia, so it would make no sense at all for us to send them live animals. Shifting the processing from New Zealand to Indonesia would simply export our jobs and reduce the benefit to the New Zealand economy. There is nothing to be gained and plenty to lose by sending live animals overseas in this manner.
The full interview can be heard at: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/saturdayextra/stories/2011/3245820.htm
Family violence must be stopped
If I was to look at one alarming crime statistic, it would be that half of the homicides in New Zealand each year are the result of family violence. And it I was to look at another, 70,000 physical, including sexual, assaults take place every year. That is 1350 recorded assaults each week, or 172 each day, and, whatever way you look at it that is unacceptable.
Police believe they only hear about one in five family violence incidents. And they respond to one somewhere in New Zealand every seven minutes, meaning, literally hardly a minute goes by when there isn’t a family assault.
At a recent hui at Tapu te Ranga marae in Wellington, I told the audience that the only way we are going to make a substantial difference in reducing domestic violence is to front up to the extent of the problem.
The causes of domestic violence are multiple and complex, but there are some plain differences we can make. To start with, if people believe that violence has taken place (or is taking place), then they have a responsibility to act. It is no longer “just a domestic” as it was called when I grew up in New Zealand.
There is one common factor affecting sixty per cent of people who are arrested for violence and other criminal acts; alcohol. Alcohol, unarguably, is the most serious drug in terms of influencing violent and criminal behaviour in NZ and that’s the context in which ten kids a year are killed by a member of their own family.
Ninety per cent of people in prison have drug and alcohol abuse problems, and if we want to reduce the level of crime and particularly violence in New Zealand, the fastest way we can make a difference, and the biggest difference we can make, would be to make alcohol less available.
And that is just as true of family violence as it is for any other crime. The best law changes I can think of to assist tackling these problems would be to put up the price of alcohol, reduce the drink driving limits and raise the drinking age. That would be a good, practical and effective first step.
Jim's E-News, May 2011
20/05/11 16:01
National government presides over dying economy
Rarely have I heard a speech of such breath-taking cynicism as Prime Minister John Key’s yesterday in support of the 2011 Budget. As his Government set us on a course to take New Zealand back to the very worst of National’s failed policies of the past, he had the gall to tell Parliament that the previous Labour-Progressive Government, of which I was a cabinet minister for 9 years, was responsible for the poor position this country is in.
Let’s look at the facts. In 2008, the Government had a fiscal surplus of $2.7 billion and its accounts were forecast to stay in surplus, unemployment was the lowest in the OECD and only 17% of children in New Zealand lived with someone reliant on a benefit. The Crown was contributing to the Superannuation Fund and had no net debt at all.
Yesterday the Government announced a deficit of $17 billion. In less than three years, unemployment is back at levels last seen in the nineties and 32 thousand more children live with someone reliant on a benefit. It is no accident.
Let’s look at where the current deficit comes from. The income tax cuts from 1 October last year cost $17.8 billion over four years. The top ten per cent of income earners alone got income tax cuts worth $44 million a week, which means that the government is borrowing two and a half billion dollars a year just for tax cuts for that top ten per cent of income earners.
Let’s now look at what this Budget has done? It has cut ‘Working for Families’, it has cut Kiwisaver and it has cut students loans and it has promised to sell off state-owned assets. But it has also allowed for the rich to keep their tax cuts of $44 million a week.
What we have is a government that is too weak to make the changes New Zealand needs, and there is a predictable outcome to this failure; ordinary people will suffer. When families don’t have adequate income, children end up living in poor housing conditions, they lack nourishment and they are not warm enough. Their health suffers and their opportunities suffer even more.
This National-led government should be ashamed of itself. It has not one single programme to fix the problem it has outlined and if it is voted back in office at this year’s General Election, it will come back and ask again for more because its policies have failed.
This Budget is a return to the failed policies of the nineties. It fails to create jobs, it fails to lift incomes and it fails to create a stronger future for New Zealand. In fact it is unarguably the worst I have seen in all of my years in Parliament.
My Budget Day speech can be found here.
Half of New Zealanders don’t have access to affordable dental care
Nearly half of all New Zealanders did not receive any dental care in the last year, partly, at least, because of the cost. The current economic conditions are making dental care even less affordable for New Zealanders.
Dental health is the ‘poor relation’ of our health system. It goes under the radar screen but the human and health costs are mounting.
I am launching an in-depth policy document to stimulate discussion about ways to fill the dental care hole in the health system, with the release at parliament next month of research about the extent of the problem and options for solving it.
The Government spokesperson said recently in the House that he was satisfied that New Zealanders have adequate access to affordable dental health care. He also said he was satisfied with the affordability of dental care, and only acknowledges ‘some’ can’t afford it. In fact 44% of all New Zealanders aren’t getting dental health care. That is more than ‘some.’
The Government also believes that hospital care is an adequate backstop. But people are queuing at dawn for that care, and they even then can only access emergency services such as pain relief and teeth extractions. The National-led government is minimising a serious problem and accepting Third World solutions.
If there is a single policy initiative that could make a difference to health outcomes for all New Zealanders, it would be access to affordable dental health care. Current economic conditions are putting affordable health care even further beyond the reach of average New Zealanders. We need action.
I’ve been studying the problem, and have developed some practical options for making dental care affordable, starting with sensible, practical steps we can take straight away. I’ll be releasing that document in late June.
With up to half of New Zealanders missing out on the dental health care they need, this is not a problem that can be ignored.
Inside the Red Zone
Almost three months after the 22 February Christchurch earthquake, I and the other Christchurch MPs toured the Red Zone earlier this week. The Red Zone is the inner city central business district which has remained strictly off limits to the general public. It was a stark and solemn reminder of the damage that was done on February 22 and of the tragic loss of life that occurred. The miracle was that not more lives were lost.
The destruction is almost inconceivable and to see from close quarters landmarks such as the Hotel Grand Chancellor leaning so perilously close to its neighbouring buildings was quite sobering. The other thing that struck me was boarded up buildings in deserted streets along with winter leaves piling up on the ground in the shadows of an autumn afternoon. It was reminiscent of the images we have seen of the aftermath of a nuclear winter.
The CTV site is now barren and the only reminder of what occurred there are wreaths of flowers placed on the ground, a poignant tribute to those who died. Elsewhere in the city, there are still piles of rubble waiting to be cleared and buildings with their insides exposed. In one, the whole side of a building had fallen off, leaving an upstairs bedroom open to an almost voyeuristic view of a small set of shelves holding folded clothes, completely undisturbed.
What was clear from our visit is that the process of making the central city safe is going to be a long one, and so too the enormity of the work ahead. With that in mind, I was delighted at the appointment of Roger Sutton to lead the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA). The talents Roger has demonstrated in leading the power company Orion have not been replicated in any corporate infrastructure company I am aware of anywhere else in New Zealand. He brings a mix of skills that should successfully manage that difficult terrain between political and public pressures, the requirement to exercise good judgement and the need to show strong and inclusive leadership. I am looking forward to working with Roger to rebuild our city.
Those wishing to have a look at the inner city can do so by visiting Terralink’s earthquake street camera.
New electorate office
As a result of earthquake damage, my staff and I have had to relocate my Wigram electorate office, and we are now sharing the premises of the Tulloch Group, 2 Baigent Way. This is on the corner of Lunns Road, just off the southern expressway.
My office contact details remain the same, phone 365 5459 or 365 6172, or email anderton.wigram@parliament.govt.nz.
It is very generous of the Tulloch Group to accommodate us, as following the earthquake my staff worked out of my home and we held constituent clinics at the Rowley Community Centre. It was far from ideal. But we are now all back together and fully engaged.
Because we are sharing premises, constituents wishing to see me or my staff are requested to phone and make an appointment.
Petrol margins remain too high
While the current high price for petrol is being blamed solely on the high cost of oil, many people will be surprised and dismayed to learn that the margin of 29 cents a litre that petrol companies currently apply to fuel sales is nearly double their average margin of last year. Those record margins are indefensible and show the greed of petrol companies at a time when restraint is needed.
The price of petrol is too high because the Government has taken its eye off the ball and petrol companies know they won’t face any pressure for taking advantage of New Zealand consumers. Although the price of petrol has dropped from a record high of 221.9 cents a litre in early May to around 212.9 cents now, it could drop lower still if petrol companies were prepared to take a lower profit margin.
In early May the petrol companies’ margin on fuel was 29 cents per litre compared with an average of around 19 cents in the previous ten days. The lowest margin in the last year had been just 4 cents per litre.
As we all know, petrol prices are always fast to increase and slow to fall. These excessive prices are not just bad for consumers, but bad for business because transport costs are always passed on the consumer.
Given that the New Zealand dollar is now generally at a much higher rate than it has been against other currencies for the last twenty years, it is long past time that petrol companies showed a bit of control and acted in the interests of the country as a whole.
Rarely have I heard a speech of such breath-taking cynicism as Prime Minister John Key’s yesterday in support of the 2011 Budget. As his Government set us on a course to take New Zealand back to the very worst of National’s failed policies of the past, he had the gall to tell Parliament that the previous Labour-Progressive Government, of which I was a cabinet minister for 9 years, was responsible for the poor position this country is in.
Let’s look at the facts. In 2008, the Government had a fiscal surplus of $2.7 billion and its accounts were forecast to stay in surplus, unemployment was the lowest in the OECD and only 17% of children in New Zealand lived with someone reliant on a benefit. The Crown was contributing to the Superannuation Fund and had no net debt at all.
Yesterday the Government announced a deficit of $17 billion. In less than three years, unemployment is back at levels last seen in the nineties and 32 thousand more children live with someone reliant on a benefit. It is no accident.
Let’s look at where the current deficit comes from. The income tax cuts from 1 October last year cost $17.8 billion over four years. The top ten per cent of income earners alone got income tax cuts worth $44 million a week, which means that the government is borrowing two and a half billion dollars a year just for tax cuts for that top ten per cent of income earners.
Let’s now look at what this Budget has done? It has cut ‘Working for Families’, it has cut Kiwisaver and it has cut students loans and it has promised to sell off state-owned assets. But it has also allowed for the rich to keep their tax cuts of $44 million a week.
What we have is a government that is too weak to make the changes New Zealand needs, and there is a predictable outcome to this failure; ordinary people will suffer. When families don’t have adequate income, children end up living in poor housing conditions, they lack nourishment and they are not warm enough. Their health suffers and their opportunities suffer even more.
This National-led government should be ashamed of itself. It has not one single programme to fix the problem it has outlined and if it is voted back in office at this year’s General Election, it will come back and ask again for more because its policies have failed.
This Budget is a return to the failed policies of the nineties. It fails to create jobs, it fails to lift incomes and it fails to create a stronger future for New Zealand. In fact it is unarguably the worst I have seen in all of my years in Parliament.
My Budget Day speech can be found here.
Half of New Zealanders don’t have access to affordable dental care
Nearly half of all New Zealanders did not receive any dental care in the last year, partly, at least, because of the cost. The current economic conditions are making dental care even less affordable for New Zealanders.
Dental health is the ‘poor relation’ of our health system. It goes under the radar screen but the human and health costs are mounting.
I am launching an in-depth policy document to stimulate discussion about ways to fill the dental care hole in the health system, with the release at parliament next month of research about the extent of the problem and options for solving it.
The Government spokesperson said recently in the House that he was satisfied that New Zealanders have adequate access to affordable dental health care. He also said he was satisfied with the affordability of dental care, and only acknowledges ‘some’ can’t afford it. In fact 44% of all New Zealanders aren’t getting dental health care. That is more than ‘some.’
The Government also believes that hospital care is an adequate backstop. But people are queuing at dawn for that care, and they even then can only access emergency services such as pain relief and teeth extractions. The National-led government is minimising a serious problem and accepting Third World solutions.
If there is a single policy initiative that could make a difference to health outcomes for all New Zealanders, it would be access to affordable dental health care. Current economic conditions are putting affordable health care even further beyond the reach of average New Zealanders. We need action.
I’ve been studying the problem, and have developed some practical options for making dental care affordable, starting with sensible, practical steps we can take straight away. I’ll be releasing that document in late June.
With up to half of New Zealanders missing out on the dental health care they need, this is not a problem that can be ignored.
Inside the Red Zone
Almost three months after the 22 February Christchurch earthquake, I and the other Christchurch MPs toured the Red Zone earlier this week. The Red Zone is the inner city central business district which has remained strictly off limits to the general public. It was a stark and solemn reminder of the damage that was done on February 22 and of the tragic loss of life that occurred. The miracle was that not more lives were lost.
The destruction is almost inconceivable and to see from close quarters landmarks such as the Hotel Grand Chancellor leaning so perilously close to its neighbouring buildings was quite sobering. The other thing that struck me was boarded up buildings in deserted streets along with winter leaves piling up on the ground in the shadows of an autumn afternoon. It was reminiscent of the images we have seen of the aftermath of a nuclear winter.
The CTV site is now barren and the only reminder of what occurred there are wreaths of flowers placed on the ground, a poignant tribute to those who died. Elsewhere in the city, there are still piles of rubble waiting to be cleared and buildings with their insides exposed. In one, the whole side of a building had fallen off, leaving an upstairs bedroom open to an almost voyeuristic view of a small set of shelves holding folded clothes, completely undisturbed.
What was clear from our visit is that the process of making the central city safe is going to be a long one, and so too the enormity of the work ahead. With that in mind, I was delighted at the appointment of Roger Sutton to lead the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA). The talents Roger has demonstrated in leading the power company Orion have not been replicated in any corporate infrastructure company I am aware of anywhere else in New Zealand. He brings a mix of skills that should successfully manage that difficult terrain between political and public pressures, the requirement to exercise good judgement and the need to show strong and inclusive leadership. I am looking forward to working with Roger to rebuild our city.
Those wishing to have a look at the inner city can do so by visiting Terralink’s earthquake street camera.
New electorate office
As a result of earthquake damage, my staff and I have had to relocate my Wigram electorate office, and we are now sharing the premises of the Tulloch Group, 2 Baigent Way. This is on the corner of Lunns Road, just off the southern expressway.
My office contact details remain the same, phone 365 5459 or 365 6172, or email anderton.wigram@parliament.govt.nz.
It is very generous of the Tulloch Group to accommodate us, as following the earthquake my staff worked out of my home and we held constituent clinics at the Rowley Community Centre. It was far from ideal. But we are now all back together and fully engaged.
Because we are sharing premises, constituents wishing to see me or my staff are requested to phone and make an appointment.
Petrol margins remain too high
While the current high price for petrol is being blamed solely on the high cost of oil, many people will be surprised and dismayed to learn that the margin of 29 cents a litre that petrol companies currently apply to fuel sales is nearly double their average margin of last year. Those record margins are indefensible and show the greed of petrol companies at a time when restraint is needed.
The price of petrol is too high because the Government has taken its eye off the ball and petrol companies know they won’t face any pressure for taking advantage of New Zealand consumers. Although the price of petrol has dropped from a record high of 221.9 cents a litre in early May to around 212.9 cents now, it could drop lower still if petrol companies were prepared to take a lower profit margin.
In early May the petrol companies’ margin on fuel was 29 cents per litre compared with an average of around 19 cents in the previous ten days. The lowest margin in the last year had been just 4 cents per litre.
As we all know, petrol prices are always fast to increase and slow to fall. These excessive prices are not just bad for consumers, but bad for business because transport costs are always passed on the consumer.
Given that the New Zealand dollar is now generally at a much higher rate than it has been against other currencies for the last twenty years, it is long past time that petrol companies showed a bit of control and acted in the interests of the country as a whole.
Jim's E-News, April 2011
05/04/11 09:57
Twenty seconds of terror
It took little more than twenty seconds, but the Christchurch earthquake of 22 February brought terror to a city that was almost unimaginable. Someone asked me whether the images on television and newspapers exaggerated the event, but they did not. In that short time, buildings toppled and roads buckled and cracked in a way that I never imagined possible, and far outweighed the damage caused by the earlier quakes in September last year.
Although I was in Wellington when the 22 February quake struck, my wife Carole was driving home through the Christchurch city centre and so powerful was the force she thought the car had been hit by a truck.
It is good to be able to report that our families and my Christchurch staff are all safe and well, although all have suffered some damage to homes and sections. The roof in our home was badly damaged and we have had to revert to that old practice of getting out the buckets to catch the drips when it rains.
While, fortunately, none of my staff or family was physically injured, most have been left quite unsettled by the event, something which probably reflects the experience of most people in Christchurch. My office in Selwyn Street has been cordoned off and we have just been told that it will have to be demolished, a sad way to end around 20 years in that particular office.
We are currently looking for a new office, but in the meantime my staff and I are working out of my house and from their homes, and we are holding constituent clinics in the Rowley Resource Centre. Our phone numbers and email addresses are all the same, and so constituents needing to contact us should continue to do so by phone or email.
Now the work starts
The work rebuilding Christchurch is one that presents as many opportunities as challenges and I have been working as much as is possible with my parliamentary colleagues to ensure that we do the best for our city.
We are working at two levels. The first is in a quite practical way to assist constituents who have suffered loss or damage, whether they be residents or local business owners. Aside from such things as loss of power, sewerage and water, there are also homes and buildings which have been damaged, in many cases irretrievably. This has spawned a number of problems, with people needing to find new homes and, in many cases, finding that insurance policies didn’t live up to expectations. The other MPs, city councillors and I are also being briefed twice a week by Civil Defence and Council authorities.
The other level we are working at is at a national one, and most people will now be aware that the Government has set up a new ministry, The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA), to take charge of the recovery and rebuild from here. The National Government and Earthquake Minister Brownlee did not consult with local Labour MPs or me in the development of CERA, however it is evident that the tasks which lie ahead are too great for the Christchurch City Council alone, and so the establishment of a new ministry was inevitable.
Within its structure, CERA has a “Cross Party Forum” which will allow MPs to advise Minister Brownlee, and there is an opportunity for widespread community consultation, so we will be working hard to ensure that it is an effective body. There are, however, some real dangers with CERA, in particular with its power to relax, suspend or extend laws and regulations, and it can, for example, acquire, hold, deal with and dispose of property, and to call-in the powers and functions of a local authority or council organisation.
The work of CERA and progress towards the rebuilding of Christchurch will be reported in future newsletters.
Wood critical element in rebuild
While the Earthquake Minister may be trumpeting his view that old “dunger” stone and brick buildings in Christchurch should be knocked over and replaced, he fails to take into account that the most notable earthquake casualties, in terms of building collapse leading to loss of life, were modern buildings, their construction primarily of concrete and steel.
For some years now, I have been advocating the use of wood for commercial buildings, and the Christchurch rebuild is a perfect opportunity to showcase the merits of wooden buildings. My view is supported by mounting social, scientific and engineering evidence which shows that wood has the characteristics needed for a safe, modern city. As well as being safe, wood is a renewable resource with a plentiful supply, it is ecologically sound, less expensive than many alternatives and is an attractive, iconic New Zealand product. Strange as it may seem, laminated wood members have excellent fire resistance because the slow rate of surface charring protects the wood inside the beams and columns.
Researchers at the University of Canterbury, comparing the potential of commercial buildings constructed of wood against concrete and steel, concluded that timber construction is ideally suited to multi-storey building because of its high strength-to-weight ratio. The lightweight nature of predominantly timber buildings requires a lower earthquake loading than for a reinforced concrete one, wood being one quarter the weight of concrete for the same sized components.
Another benefit is that the new construction engineering methods, particularly using laminated wood, have changed plain old radiata pine from an export commodity into a high quality engineering material. There seems little sense in exporting raw logs when they could be successfully turned into high quality construction products right here and save on the need to import other construction materials. In other words we can create jobs rather than export them.
There is, therefore, no reason that Christchurch cannot become a world-leader in innovative, medium-rise wooden commercial buildings. We have sufficient wood resources and we now have among us the designers, architects, construction engineers and builders with the expertise to get on with the job, and many are waiting to do just that.
More:
Stuff
World Architecture News
NZ Wood
Select Committee on the Alcohol Reform Bill I recently appeared before the Select Committee on the Alcohol Reform Bill to speak to my submission which called for a number of crucial measures to address this country’s heavy drinking culture.
In particular, I urged the Committee to recommend a return of the minimum drinking age to 20 years, with no exceptions, to seek advice from officials on how a minimum price regime could be introduced to ensure a reduction in alcohol consumption, to stop the advertising of alcohol (other than that which communicates product information) and to develop a blueprint for addiction service delivery for the next five years.
In its report, the Law Commission recommended that blood alcohol limits be reduced from 80mgs of alcohol per 100mls of blood to 50mgs for all drivers, with zero tolerance for drivers under 20 years of age. Despite that, the Government said it needs more evidence before making any changes, and has decided not to lower the limit at this stage. I asked the Committee to review that position as I believe there is sufficient evidence already available, including the Ministry of Transport saying that the single most effective measure the Government could enact to decrease drunk driving deaths, injury and social/economic and human costs would be to decrease the drink driving limit from 80mgs to 50mgs per 100mls of blood.
Similarly, when blood alcohol levels were reduced from 50mgs to 20mgs in Sweden there was a 10% reduction in road/driving fatalities. It is that simple.
Although most measures in the Alcohol Reform Bill are positive, its failure to include the steps I have set out reflects a serious deficiency in what is our best opportunity for years to deal comprehensively with alcohol reform in general and its outrageous toll on our communities in particular.
There is no doubt that, as long as alcohol continues to be sold as a normal commodity at neighbourhood stores and supermarkets, there will continue to be billions of dollars of harm in New Zealand each year, including 20 deaths per week and 70,000 alcohol-related physical and sexual assaults each year. That is 1350 per week. One third of all police arrests involve alcohol, and it just doesn’t seem too difficult to do something about it.
Government, not quake, caused greatest deficit in history
I am confident that the New Zealand public will see John Key and his National Government’s claim that the “biggest budget deficit in history” is just a result of the Canterbury earthquake as the nonsense it is.
John Key recently told TVNZ that the May 19 Budget will include the biggest deficit in history mainly because of the cost of the rebuild and recovery in Christchurch. That claim is simply untrue and designed to conceal the devastating effects of last year’s bad economic decisions made by him and his government
The Government is conveniently using the earthquakes to mask something we all know; that the National Government has no economic plan and that the recession is a result of its inept management. Even Treasury said in its recent update that two thirds of the deficit was happening before the 22 February earthquake hit.
While we cannot argue that the earthquakes have not had an impact, the economy was already deeply in the red. That’s because the Government’s so-called “tax switch” last year was not revenue neutral as it claimed. In fact it has given billions of dollars more to top earners than we could afford.
To now blame Christchurch is an insult to the hardworking people who are trying to put the city back together.
The other thing that John Key fails to take into account is that the cost of the earthquakes does not have to be met in a single year, and no-one expects the rebuild to be completed in a year.
Care needed with biosecurity charges
The new Biosecurity Law Reform Bill currently being debated in parliament will make it possible for farmers to be charged for the cost of cleaning up biosecurity incursions as well as the cost of keeping pests out.
While I accept that industry should make some contribution towards biosecurity costs, in its current form the proposed law is impractical and doesn’t take account of the possible consequences for the entire agricultural and horticultural sectors if they are charged the full amount for biosecurity protections. An across the board charge is impractical and any imposition of costs has to be carefully considered.
But in what is currently proposed there isn’t an even match between costs of biosecurity protection and sectors that reap the benefits.
The last Labour-Progressive government recognised the principle of getting businesses with a stake in the outcome to shoulder some of the responsibility of keeping pests out, but it doesn’t make sense and it is unfair to put all the costs on the sector that is being affected by a potential incursion. The benefits from one sector spill over to others.
For example, if beekeepers had been forced to cover the entire cost of keeping the varroa bee mite out, or its eradication after it arrived, that could have crippled and ended the beekeeping industry. But it is not just the beekeeping industry which benefits from controlling the varroa mite; our entire horticultural sector and much of our agricultural production depends on bees for such things as crop pollination. So even if it is not economic for beekeepers to fight varroa, it is critically important for the rest of our horticultural and agricultural sectors to have a thriving bee industry and that it why it is a much wider issue than just for beekeepers. The costs of keeping pests out would be enough to wipe out a key sector that benefits a much larger part of the economy.
The Government needs to redraft its biosecurity statute to better work with agricultural industry sectors.
There are some producers who benefit from pest control but want someone else to pay for it. But there are also industry sectors which would benefit from having a stake in making sure pests are kept out. It is essential to ensure costs don’t fall in a way that wipes out some critically important parts of our agricultural economic base.
It took little more than twenty seconds, but the Christchurch earthquake of 22 February brought terror to a city that was almost unimaginable. Someone asked me whether the images on television and newspapers exaggerated the event, but they did not. In that short time, buildings toppled and roads buckled and cracked in a way that I never imagined possible, and far outweighed the damage caused by the earlier quakes in September last year.
Although I was in Wellington when the 22 February quake struck, my wife Carole was driving home through the Christchurch city centre and so powerful was the force she thought the car had been hit by a truck.
It is good to be able to report that our families and my Christchurch staff are all safe and well, although all have suffered some damage to homes and sections. The roof in our home was badly damaged and we have had to revert to that old practice of getting out the buckets to catch the drips when it rains.
While, fortunately, none of my staff or family was physically injured, most have been left quite unsettled by the event, something which probably reflects the experience of most people in Christchurch. My office in Selwyn Street has been cordoned off and we have just been told that it will have to be demolished, a sad way to end around 20 years in that particular office.
We are currently looking for a new office, but in the meantime my staff and I are working out of my house and from their homes, and we are holding constituent clinics in the Rowley Resource Centre. Our phone numbers and email addresses are all the same, and so constituents needing to contact us should continue to do so by phone or email.
Now the work starts
The work rebuilding Christchurch is one that presents as many opportunities as challenges and I have been working as much as is possible with my parliamentary colleagues to ensure that we do the best for our city.
We are working at two levels. The first is in a quite practical way to assist constituents who have suffered loss or damage, whether they be residents or local business owners. Aside from such things as loss of power, sewerage and water, there are also homes and buildings which have been damaged, in many cases irretrievably. This has spawned a number of problems, with people needing to find new homes and, in many cases, finding that insurance policies didn’t live up to expectations. The other MPs, city councillors and I are also being briefed twice a week by Civil Defence and Council authorities.
The other level we are working at is at a national one, and most people will now be aware that the Government has set up a new ministry, The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA), to take charge of the recovery and rebuild from here. The National Government and Earthquake Minister Brownlee did not consult with local Labour MPs or me in the development of CERA, however it is evident that the tasks which lie ahead are too great for the Christchurch City Council alone, and so the establishment of a new ministry was inevitable.
Within its structure, CERA has a “Cross Party Forum” which will allow MPs to advise Minister Brownlee, and there is an opportunity for widespread community consultation, so we will be working hard to ensure that it is an effective body. There are, however, some real dangers with CERA, in particular with its power to relax, suspend or extend laws and regulations, and it can, for example, acquire, hold, deal with and dispose of property, and to call-in the powers and functions of a local authority or council organisation.
The work of CERA and progress towards the rebuilding of Christchurch will be reported in future newsletters.
Wood critical element in rebuild
While the Earthquake Minister may be trumpeting his view that old “dunger” stone and brick buildings in Christchurch should be knocked over and replaced, he fails to take into account that the most notable earthquake casualties, in terms of building collapse leading to loss of life, were modern buildings, their construction primarily of concrete and steel.
For some years now, I have been advocating the use of wood for commercial buildings, and the Christchurch rebuild is a perfect opportunity to showcase the merits of wooden buildings. My view is supported by mounting social, scientific and engineering evidence which shows that wood has the characteristics needed for a safe, modern city. As well as being safe, wood is a renewable resource with a plentiful supply, it is ecologically sound, less expensive than many alternatives and is an attractive, iconic New Zealand product. Strange as it may seem, laminated wood members have excellent fire resistance because the slow rate of surface charring protects the wood inside the beams and columns.
Researchers at the University of Canterbury, comparing the potential of commercial buildings constructed of wood against concrete and steel, concluded that timber construction is ideally suited to multi-storey building because of its high strength-to-weight ratio. The lightweight nature of predominantly timber buildings requires a lower earthquake loading than for a reinforced concrete one, wood being one quarter the weight of concrete for the same sized components.
Another benefit is that the new construction engineering methods, particularly using laminated wood, have changed plain old radiata pine from an export commodity into a high quality engineering material. There seems little sense in exporting raw logs when they could be successfully turned into high quality construction products right here and save on the need to import other construction materials. In other words we can create jobs rather than export them.
There is, therefore, no reason that Christchurch cannot become a world-leader in innovative, medium-rise wooden commercial buildings. We have sufficient wood resources and we now have among us the designers, architects, construction engineers and builders with the expertise to get on with the job, and many are waiting to do just that.
More:
Stuff
World Architecture News
NZ Wood
Select Committee on the Alcohol Reform Bill I recently appeared before the Select Committee on the Alcohol Reform Bill to speak to my submission which called for a number of crucial measures to address this country’s heavy drinking culture.
In particular, I urged the Committee to recommend a return of the minimum drinking age to 20 years, with no exceptions, to seek advice from officials on how a minimum price regime could be introduced to ensure a reduction in alcohol consumption, to stop the advertising of alcohol (other than that which communicates product information) and to develop a blueprint for addiction service delivery for the next five years.
In its report, the Law Commission recommended that blood alcohol limits be reduced from 80mgs of alcohol per 100mls of blood to 50mgs for all drivers, with zero tolerance for drivers under 20 years of age. Despite that, the Government said it needs more evidence before making any changes, and has decided not to lower the limit at this stage. I asked the Committee to review that position as I believe there is sufficient evidence already available, including the Ministry of Transport saying that the single most effective measure the Government could enact to decrease drunk driving deaths, injury and social/economic and human costs would be to decrease the drink driving limit from 80mgs to 50mgs per 100mls of blood.
Similarly, when blood alcohol levels were reduced from 50mgs to 20mgs in Sweden there was a 10% reduction in road/driving fatalities. It is that simple.
Although most measures in the Alcohol Reform Bill are positive, its failure to include the steps I have set out reflects a serious deficiency in what is our best opportunity for years to deal comprehensively with alcohol reform in general and its outrageous toll on our communities in particular.
There is no doubt that, as long as alcohol continues to be sold as a normal commodity at neighbourhood stores and supermarkets, there will continue to be billions of dollars of harm in New Zealand each year, including 20 deaths per week and 70,000 alcohol-related physical and sexual assaults each year. That is 1350 per week. One third of all police arrests involve alcohol, and it just doesn’t seem too difficult to do something about it.
Government, not quake, caused greatest deficit in history
I am confident that the New Zealand public will see John Key and his National Government’s claim that the “biggest budget deficit in history” is just a result of the Canterbury earthquake as the nonsense it is.
John Key recently told TVNZ that the May 19 Budget will include the biggest deficit in history mainly because of the cost of the rebuild and recovery in Christchurch. That claim is simply untrue and designed to conceal the devastating effects of last year’s bad economic decisions made by him and his government
The Government is conveniently using the earthquakes to mask something we all know; that the National Government has no economic plan and that the recession is a result of its inept management. Even Treasury said in its recent update that two thirds of the deficit was happening before the 22 February earthquake hit.
While we cannot argue that the earthquakes have not had an impact, the economy was already deeply in the red. That’s because the Government’s so-called “tax switch” last year was not revenue neutral as it claimed. In fact it has given billions of dollars more to top earners than we could afford.
To now blame Christchurch is an insult to the hardworking people who are trying to put the city back together.
The other thing that John Key fails to take into account is that the cost of the earthquakes does not have to be met in a single year, and no-one expects the rebuild to be completed in a year.
Care needed with biosecurity charges
The new Biosecurity Law Reform Bill currently being debated in parliament will make it possible for farmers to be charged for the cost of cleaning up biosecurity incursions as well as the cost of keeping pests out.
While I accept that industry should make some contribution towards biosecurity costs, in its current form the proposed law is impractical and doesn’t take account of the possible consequences for the entire agricultural and horticultural sectors if they are charged the full amount for biosecurity protections. An across the board charge is impractical and any imposition of costs has to be carefully considered.
But in what is currently proposed there isn’t an even match between costs of biosecurity protection and sectors that reap the benefits.
The last Labour-Progressive government recognised the principle of getting businesses with a stake in the outcome to shoulder some of the responsibility of keeping pests out, but it doesn’t make sense and it is unfair to put all the costs on the sector that is being affected by a potential incursion. The benefits from one sector spill over to others.
For example, if beekeepers had been forced to cover the entire cost of keeping the varroa bee mite out, or its eradication after it arrived, that could have crippled and ended the beekeeping industry. But it is not just the beekeeping industry which benefits from controlling the varroa mite; our entire horticultural sector and much of our agricultural production depends on bees for such things as crop pollination. So even if it is not economic for beekeepers to fight varroa, it is critically important for the rest of our horticultural and agricultural sectors to have a thriving bee industry and that it why it is a much wider issue than just for beekeepers. The costs of keeping pests out would be enough to wipe out a key sector that benefits a much larger part of the economy.
The Government needs to redraft its biosecurity statute to better work with agricultural industry sectors.
There are some producers who benefit from pest control but want someone else to pay for it. But there are also industry sectors which would benefit from having a stake in making sure pests are kept out. It is essential to ensure costs don’t fall in a way that wipes out some critically important parts of our agricultural economic base.
Jim's E-News, February 2011
18/02/11 15:29
Key short on answers to economy
Parliament resumed earlier this month and in my first speech for the year, I questioned whether John Key’s words about ‘aspirational’ government and his pledges for progress and prosperity for the nation were nothing more than the rhetoric we heard after the Canterbury earthquakes. Lots of hype, but little action!
Here are the problems that Mr Key faces: After more than two years of his government, economic growth has stopped. Any so-called recovery has stalled. Unemployment is going up, not down, with youth unemployment going through the roof. Jobs are being lost, not created. The cost of living is increasing, but incomes aren’t keeping pace, particularly for low to middle income New Zealanders.
You might ask what the Prime Minister’s strategy is to tackle those problems. The answer is that he doesn’t have one. His economic policy consists of asset sales. That is not an economic policy: It is a surrender of the sovereignty of New Zealand. Not one new job will be created by selling-off the people’s power companies, but every one of us will be paying higher power bills to the new overseas owners. We know this because we’ve seen it all before.
The National Party says selling assets will pay off debt. That is exactly what was said in the eighties by Roger Douglas. It’s what was said in the nineties by the National Government, and we all know what happened. We became worse off.
Mr Key says the assets will be kept in New Zealand hands. That is what they said about Contact Energy, the Bank of New Zealand, Postbank, Air New Zealand, NZ Rail and practically every other strategic asset which was privatised. And it was nonsense.
Who owns those assets now? Not the Kiwi mums and dads Mr Key talks about. The majority interests (apart from those the last Labour-led government bought back) are mainly held in Australia.
It doesn’t take too much analysis to work out that, if there is a debt crisis and the country is borrowing too much, the $43 million a week given by the National Government in tax cuts to the top ten per cent of income earners last year would have gone a considerable way to fixing the problem.
My speech to Parliament can be found here.
Victory over DB Export ad
The Advertising Standards Authority has ruled in favour of my complaint against the DB Export beer advertising campaign, agreeing with me that the presentation of film footage from the 1951 waterfront lockout riots as portraying civil unrest in response to Finance Minister Arnold Nordmeyer’s 1958 Budget was wrong and misleading. As a result, the Authority has requested that the ads in their present form be withdrawn.
The ads, set in the time of the so-called ‘Black Budget’, portray Nordmeyer as a tight-fisted old bore who taxed beer to the extent that working men could no longer afford to drink. In what was then a distortion of epic proportion, the ad went on to show archive footage of men rioting, ostensibly over the price of beer, when in fact the footage was from the 1951 waterfront lockout.
The Complaints Board agreed that footage used in the advertisements was ‘demonstrably false’ and it considered ‘the execution of ‘documentary type’ style, contrasting black and white screen-shots and accompanying authoritative narration coupled with actual footage of riots (from a different historical event) gave the impression that the advertisements were portraying a credible and realistic depiction of history’.
The Board also decided that the advertisements ‘went too far and the likely consumer conclusion was that the account portrayed in the advertisements was an accurate depiction of history, when it was no such thing’.
This ad went further than just distorting history; it was deliberately making barbed threats to politicians that any increase in the tax on beer would be met by brewing companies spending tens of millions dollars to attack them. It was no accident these ads were made at the very time the Law Commission was looking at reforming liquor legislation, including by having tighter controls over its advertising.
This shows just how far the liquor industry will go and how dishonestly they will act to protect and promote their products.
My press release can be found here.
There is more coverage on 3 News and in the Herald.
End link between alcohol and sport
Earlier this month, I spoke to the ‘Sport and Alcohol: Finding the Balance’ conference at Massey University, calling for an end to the sponsorship of sport by alcohol companies. My message was that normalising the association between beer and sport sends all the wrong messages, just as it did with the links between tobacco companies and sporting bodies in the past.The three day conference, which was sponsored by ALAC in association with Massey University, looked at a wide variety of issues, including the alcohol industry and hazardous drinking among sports people, the effects of alcohol on sport and the changing face of sports and alcohol-related culture. Interestingly, and perhaps not surprisingly, representatives of the liquor industry were nowhere to be seen.
By citing examples of the methods used by the alcohol industry to link sport and alcohol, from sponsorship at junior club level to corporate hospitality and sponsorship of sporting stars, I was able to show that even the youngest players are in no doubt that beer is an integral part of sport in New Zealand.
You have to look no further than the All Blacks to see this, with beer branding liberally plastered over their playing outfits, promotional material and almost every piece of memorabilia. The marketers know that youngsters like to emulate their All Black heroes and exploit this as much as they can. What they are doing by targeting the young is creating customers for life.
I told the conference that, as long as brewers continue to have an association with sport, there is no way of changing New Zealand’s heavy drinking culture. And by associating with sporting brilliance the alcohol industry sells more beer, and the brewers laugh all the way to the bank.
Many sporting bodies will tell us they would not survive without sponsorship from liquor companies, but that it not true. They said the same when tobacco sponsorship became prohibited; cricket was traditionally sponsored by tobacco companies but what then happened was that others, including the National Bank, stepped in. The same can happen now with liquor sponsorship. What it may require is some assistance from Government to enable that to happen. That would be a good investment.
My speech to the Massey conference can be found here.
There’s more at TVNZ and here.
Quake recovery exposes lack of strategy
A week ago I held a meeting for business owners in my local suburbs of Sydenham and Beckenham with representatives from the Christchurch City Council. Five months after the first earthquake, many of those business owners are frustrated over the lack of progress and the absence of a strategy from Council and Government giving any direction for the recovery.Worse than that, in the five months since the earthquake, the local members of parliament and even city councillors have never been briefed by the Mayor or Chief Executive, and getting accurate and timely information from council officers has proved almost impossible. That is despite the Labour MPs and me working tirelessly with residents and business owners throughout. Ironically, my office was phoned recently on a Friday afternoon to tell us that such a meeting was being held this month - just hours before
The Press published a report quoting the Mayor as saying he had scheduled such a meeting.
It is difficult for those outside Christchurch to comprehend the problems the city still faces. Despite the Mayor intimating that life has returned to normal and it is ‘business as usual’, Colombo Street in Sydenham still has cordons out onto the roadway restricting access and rubble remains lying on the street in many places. Across the road from my electorate office, an entire block of shops remain cordoned off and no-one appears to have any idea about when decisions will be made to repair or demolish the buildings, and no one seems to take responsibility or show leadership.
I told the Council officials that, at no time in my public life, have I seen such a lack of leadership and failure to take responsibility. Without leadership, those shops may still be there in five years’ time with still no one the wiser about their fate.
If there has been a positive in the last few weeks, it has been first-term city councillor Tim Carter calling on the Council to establish an earthquake committee. Similarly, The Press now appears to be running a campaign to get some sort of leadership, and these things, along with our pushing, appears to have prompted some action.
Tribute to Tom Newnham
Just before Christmas I had the privilege of speaking at the funeral of Tom Newnham. Tom is perhaps best known for his opposition to racism and for promoting racial and economic justice on the national and international stage, he was a leader of CARE, the Citizens’ Association for Racial Equality, and one of New Zealand’s leading anti-Springbok tour activists.Tom was a one-off human being. He attacked institutional racism in New Zealand and around the world with an intellectual ferocity without equal. He spoke fluent Cantonese and Mandarin. As a prominent educationalist, he wasn’t easy on himself and even took some personal blame as a curriculum advisor for the remarkable lack of knowledge which most New Zealanders have of the history of their own country.
Tom was also an integral part of the story of Centre-Left politics, being involved in the Labour Party in Mt Eden, the NewLabour Party and the Alliance following the Rogernomics revolution. I was never more proud then when Tom wrote to tell me he was joining the fight back against Rogernomics.
For Tom, social justice was a way of life, a movement continually to be sought and perfected, but he was never locked in to a narrow ideology. Not for him the name calling and character assassination so common to many of his opponents, he always recognised the potential for change in an adversary and the possibility of winning over an opponent.
Tom was a great new Zealanders and a unique human being.
NZ Superannuation, a manufactured crisis?
If ever an opportunity was lost, it was the failure of the Government’s Savings Working Group (SWG) to look at the issue of superannuation, particularly given Retirement Commissioner, Dianne Crossan’s recent report that the New ZealandSuperannuation (NZS) is unaffordable in the long term. She advocates lifting the age of entitlement from 2020, introducing a transitional means-tested benefit for 65 year-olds and effectively reducing the level of NZS against the average wage.
One of Crossan’s presumptions is that it is solely young taxpayers who fund NZS and that, as the population gets older, there will be fewer working young people paying tax to maintain an increasing number of superannuitants. That argument overlooks that many superannuitants still work and pay income tax, and neglects to take into account that superannuation itself is taxable or that every time superannuitants spend money, 15 per cent is taken as GST.
Another flaw in the argument that NZS is unsustainable is the assumption that it is paid only from taxpayer income, whereas in fact it is funded from the consolidated fund or general pool of government revenue. Similarly, it assumes that the economy will not grow at anything other than current levels, thus we will have to slice the economic cake more thinly to be able to afford to pay for NZS. There is no consideration of the potential for economic growth.
Against Crossan’s assertions, it could be argued that tax reform could ensure a decent standard of living for superannuitants?
What if National’s recent cut tax rates were reversed, allowing the $4 billion a year to be invested in the NZS fund? Surely that would go a considerable way to ensuring its sustainability.
Making it more difficult to qualify for NZS either by reducing the entitlement or raising the age of eligibility lacks both imagination and creativity, and I will be raising these issues this year to ensure that the real value of NZS is not diminished by a manufactured crisis.
Jim's E-News November 2010
08/11/10 16:40
Opponent to review Kiwibank
Like putting a fox in charge of the chickens is how I described the decision by the National Government to appoint investment banker Rob Cameron to review New Zealand Post, the owner of Kiwibank. Had it been up to Mr Cameron, Kiwibank would not exist today.
When appointed to look at the business case for establishing Kiwibank, Mr Cameron reported to Treasury that it would neither succeed nor attract many customers. Both predictions proved wrong; Kiwibank has been a huge success and today has more than 800,000 customers.
Mr Cameron also predicted that Kiwibank would not be able to withstand the competitive response of the Australian banks. He was spectacularly wrong about that, too, and overlooked the benefits to New Zealand that occurred because the Australian banks were forced to reduce fees, improve services and stop closing branches.
The appointment of Mr Cameron to review New Zealand Post raises the obvious question about whether the it will be used as a launching pad for another round in the Government’s push to sell some or all of NZ Post and Kiwibank.
Why else would they appoint an individual who has prominently advocated for the privatisation of SOEs to help boost the share market?
The full statement can be found here.
Council inaction causing businesses to face closure
I have concluded that Council inaction and confusion in Christchurch is driving local businesses to the brink of closure following a ‘crunch’ meeting with Sydenham and Beckenham business owners, senior council staff and representatives from the insurance industry, government agencies and the commercial sector.
The meeting followed desperate calls from local owners whose businesses remain effectively paralysed two months after the 7.1 magnitude earthquake which rocked Christchurch. “Bricks, rubble and debris are piled high and have remained untouched for over eight weeks. The addition of cordons and traffic diversions are making pedestrian access a logistical nightmare for local businesses, and retail shops in particular are really suffering.
As a result of the meeting, the Christchurch City Council had effectively been put on notice to clear up the mess and put an end to the misery of local traders before many of them go out of business. Insurance companies have also agreed to treat individual cases on merit and on a ‘goodwill’ basis to speed up claims.
Too much time has been wasted since the earthquake, with conflicting advice, lack of communication and confusion over structural engineering reports, consent applications for repairs or demolition as well as new policy announcements on doubling the earthquake code requirement, all of which have delayed decisions on repairs and/or demolition. An urgent resolution is now critical, not only for the future but also for the very survival of a large amount of important businesses in Sydenham and Beckenham.
The full statement can be found here.
Also of interest:
Pleas to continue wage subsidy for quake hit firms [NZ Herald].
Sydenham retailers want action [Press]
Questions hang over future of shopping areas [Press]
Christchurch mayoralty
It took a seismic shift, but my bid for the Christchurch mayoralty was derailed by what was the third most significant natural disaster in the world so far this year. With incumbent Mayor Bob Parker trailing in the polls by 20%, the 7.1 magnitude Christchurch earthquake catapulted him into what turned out to be an unassailable lead, compounded by the assistance of an unquestioning media and the National Party in support.
Following the election result, I told a packed media conference that Mayor Bob Parker has a significant responsibility to deliver as the city’s rebuilding gets underway. I also warned that Mr Parker had received a clear message during the campaign that the secret decision-making and deals behind closed doors which had been a feature of his mayoralty would not be accepted by the people of Christchurch.
People’s Choice 2021, the centre-left coalition of Labour, Progressive Green and like-minded independents, had a successful local body campaign, doubling its representation on the City Council, from 2 seats to 4, and ensuring that community boards are now dominated by 2021 members.
I hope [the result] delivers a message to the new council that the people of Christchurch do want to see some change, and that some of the lessons learnt from the past are taken on board.
The Press summed up the post-election mood with the lead to its story: “He may have lost the mayoralty but Jim Anderton was treated like a rock star when he addressed his campaign supporters on Saturday night.”
Despite the mayoral loss, we have a great team in Christchurch and we will take the momentum from the mayoral race to the election campaign for a Labour-led victory in 2011.
And now, for something completely different
I may have lost the mayoral election, but during the campaign I discovered that I have a half-brother, Terry Byrne, living in Liverpool.
It transpires that my birth father, Matthew Byrne, left behind a family of three sons in the United Kingdom before coming to New Zealand where he married my mother. My father was subsequently killed in an accident and I was later adopted by his mother’s second husband, Victor Anderton.
Terry Byrne’s son realised the connection between our two families after reading about the story of my search for my natural father’s family origins in Drogheda, a town of 30,000 people 30 kilometres from Dublin. The rest, as they say, is history.
Although I was initially sceptical, the connection from both documents and family photographs became irrefutable.
Terry Byrne is the last of my UK siblings, brother still alive and l will go to Liverpool sometime soon to meet him.
For more, go here.
WARNING: Asset sales on Government agenda
I have warned that further asset sales could be on the Government’s agenda, and this could be one step closer with the release of the second 2025 Taskforce report which recommends that the Government should further privatise publicly-owned assets.
In a recent speech to the Fabian Society, I said that the National Party may well target power companies, roads, Kiwibank and a number of strategic local government assets such as water services, ports and airports for sale. I said the sales would be necessary to pay for the October 2010 tax cuts which gave huge benefits to the richest New Zealanders.
Asset sales coincided with the most dramatic collapse in New Zealand’s economic well-being in recent history, and led to a dramatic gap between the rich and poor. We lost 30% per capita income against Australia between 1970 and 1999, with the worst period between 1984 and 1994, the peak period when both Labour and National were selling assets.
Most of the assets sold during that period were at bargain-basement prices, the top 40 going for a total of $19 billion, just over one half of their combined real market value of $36 billion.
No example is more stark than the New Zealand Railways which was hocked off for around $400 million and allowed to become completely run down by the new American and then Australian owners. Subsequently, the Government was forced to buy back the tracks and then the rail company itself to guarantee the future of rail. The same for Air New Zealand.
By contrast, assets that have been retained have been a success; Meridian Energy’s business in Australia has returned $600 million to the New Zealand taxpayer, and been used to help pay for hospitals and schools. Most New Zealanders are opposed to selling our strategic publicly owned assets – but we have seen it done before and the National Party is indicating they will do it again if they get another term in government.
The Alcohol Reform Bill
boozedaznz – worth watching! Go to this You Tube video.
Two Drinks Max: Lobby power.
The new Alcohol Reform Bill is due to have its first reading in Parliament soon, following which the Select Committee will call for submissions from the public. This is the final opportunity to send comment to the Government about its response to the Law Commission’s review on the use of alcohol in New Zealand.
The Bill will focus on youth drinking and does not propose to deal with drink drive issues for two years, until further research is done.
The main features of the Bill include:
· Splitting the purchase age for alcohol to 18 years for on-license premises and 20 for off-license (by conscience vote).
· Restricting ‘ready to drink’ (RTDs) to a maximum of 5% alcohol and 1.5 standard drinks equals 10 grams of pure alcohol.
· Strengthening laws around parental provision of alcohol to minors.
· Continuing industry self-regulation of marketing and advertising while strengthening restrictions on advertising targeted to under-18 year olds
· Introducing default licensing hours of 8am to 4am for an on-license premises and 7am to 11pm for off- licenses.
· Implementing voluntary, local alcohol plans.
· Cutting down on excessive alcohol promotions at point of sale.
· Clarifying the definition of a supermarket.
· Undertaking further research on the effect of setting minimum price levels.
· Undertaking further research on blood alcohol levels for driving.
Alcohol Action NZ has produced submission postcards calling on Parliament to:
· Put an end to cheap alcohol, beginning with a minimum price for a standard drink.
· Make supermarkets alcohol-free.
· Ban alcohol advertising and sponsorship.
· Reduce the adult blood alcohol level for driving to at least 0.05 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood (presently at 0.08).
FREE submission postcards can be obtained by emailing: coordinator@alcoholaction.co.nz
More information can be found here.
TVNZ responds to Henry complaint
TVNZ has confirmed that comments by former Breakfast host, Paul Henry about Governor-General Sir Anand Satyanand and Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit breached standards of good taste and decency, were unfair and encouraged discrimination, in the Governor-General’s case, against New Zealanders who are not of a particular ethnicity.
In a formal complaint to TVNZ, I said that the question by Paul Henry to Prime Minister John Key, asking whether the next Governor- General would look and sound like a New Zealander, was a significant slur on the dignity and origins of the Governor-General, and in the worst possible taste.
I said that it was only after he and thousands of other New Zealanders complained about Mr Henry’s comments that Television New Zealand took the matter seriously, eventually leading to Mr Henry’s resignation. The Breakfast Show host repeatedly pushed the boundaries of good taste and was encouraged to be controversial by the broadcaster in search of ratings for its morning programme. It is not credible for a public broadcaster to egg on Paul Henry and then distance itself when he goes too far and crosses the line, TVNZ too must share responsibility.
Similarly, it is alarming that John Key just sat there and grinned when Henry made his comment. No other New Zealand Prime Minister would have allowed the comment to go unchecked. It was a significant failure of leadership, made worse by his lack of real action subsequently.
The ‘Henry’ incident was an ideal opportunity for the Government to look at the role and obligations of Television New Zealand and to refocus its position to that of a responsible public broadcaster.
Anderton addresses students at Lincoln
Telling students what it is like to be a ‘one-man band’ in Parliament was just one of the topics on the agenda when I recently addressed students at Lincoln University, just outside Christchurch.
They were described to me as an inquisitive class and they were. The 130 first year students asked a range of questions about my experience in Parliament and Cabinet, particularly given my long experience under MMP and the demands of juggling various roles and portfolios while in Government.
Conceding that, as one MP, I can’t get everything done nor can I get the media attention I might want for any given issue. However, I told the students that I picked out and put a lot of effort into a number of important areas: affordable dental care, alcohol and drug policies, superannuation, suicide prevention, banking and government support for research and development and for innovation.
Also addressed was the way in which I and the Progressive Party worked to form a cooperative coalition with Labour in government, made easier by the closeness of the philosophies and outlook of the respective parties. Although working closely with Labour, I also maintained my independence which meant that I was able to promote issues where, for example, our two parties may have had differing priorities.
One thing, I told the audience was that, while MMP can be improved, it provides better representation than the old two party, first past the post system. MMP also provides that, while the Government always has the majority in Parliament, there are more limits on its power than under the first past the post election system - the best news, I believe, those wanting a democratic form of government could hear.
Like putting a fox in charge of the chickens is how I described the decision by the National Government to appoint investment banker Rob Cameron to review New Zealand Post, the owner of Kiwibank. Had it been up to Mr Cameron, Kiwibank would not exist today.
When appointed to look at the business case for establishing Kiwibank, Mr Cameron reported to Treasury that it would neither succeed nor attract many customers. Both predictions proved wrong; Kiwibank has been a huge success and today has more than 800,000 customers.
Mr Cameron also predicted that Kiwibank would not be able to withstand the competitive response of the Australian banks. He was spectacularly wrong about that, too, and overlooked the benefits to New Zealand that occurred because the Australian banks were forced to reduce fees, improve services and stop closing branches.
The appointment of Mr Cameron to review New Zealand Post raises the obvious question about whether the it will be used as a launching pad for another round in the Government’s push to sell some or all of NZ Post and Kiwibank.
Why else would they appoint an individual who has prominently advocated for the privatisation of SOEs to help boost the share market?
The full statement can be found here.
Council inaction causing businesses to face closure
I have concluded that Council inaction and confusion in Christchurch is driving local businesses to the brink of closure following a ‘crunch’ meeting with Sydenham and Beckenham business owners, senior council staff and representatives from the insurance industry, government agencies and the commercial sector.
The meeting followed desperate calls from local owners whose businesses remain effectively paralysed two months after the 7.1 magnitude earthquake which rocked Christchurch. “Bricks, rubble and debris are piled high and have remained untouched for over eight weeks. The addition of cordons and traffic diversions are making pedestrian access a logistical nightmare for local businesses, and retail shops in particular are really suffering.
As a result of the meeting, the Christchurch City Council had effectively been put on notice to clear up the mess and put an end to the misery of local traders before many of them go out of business. Insurance companies have also agreed to treat individual cases on merit and on a ‘goodwill’ basis to speed up claims.
Too much time has been wasted since the earthquake, with conflicting advice, lack of communication and confusion over structural engineering reports, consent applications for repairs or demolition as well as new policy announcements on doubling the earthquake code requirement, all of which have delayed decisions on repairs and/or demolition. An urgent resolution is now critical, not only for the future but also for the very survival of a large amount of important businesses in Sydenham and Beckenham.
The full statement can be found here.
Also of interest:
Pleas to continue wage subsidy for quake hit firms [NZ Herald].
Sydenham retailers want action [Press]
Questions hang over future of shopping areas [Press]
Christchurch mayoralty
It took a seismic shift, but my bid for the Christchurch mayoralty was derailed by what was the third most significant natural disaster in the world so far this year. With incumbent Mayor Bob Parker trailing in the polls by 20%, the 7.1 magnitude Christchurch earthquake catapulted him into what turned out to be an unassailable lead, compounded by the assistance of an unquestioning media and the National Party in support.
Following the election result, I told a packed media conference that Mayor Bob Parker has a significant responsibility to deliver as the city’s rebuilding gets underway. I also warned that Mr Parker had received a clear message during the campaign that the secret decision-making and deals behind closed doors which had been a feature of his mayoralty would not be accepted by the people of Christchurch.
People’s Choice 2021, the centre-left coalition of Labour, Progressive Green and like-minded independents, had a successful local body campaign, doubling its representation on the City Council, from 2 seats to 4, and ensuring that community boards are now dominated by 2021 members.
I hope [the result] delivers a message to the new council that the people of Christchurch do want to see some change, and that some of the lessons learnt from the past are taken on board.
The Press summed up the post-election mood with the lead to its story: “He may have lost the mayoralty but Jim Anderton was treated like a rock star when he addressed his campaign supporters on Saturday night.”
Despite the mayoral loss, we have a great team in Christchurch and we will take the momentum from the mayoral race to the election campaign for a Labour-led victory in 2011.
And now, for something completely different
I may have lost the mayoral election, but during the campaign I discovered that I have a half-brother, Terry Byrne, living in Liverpool.
It transpires that my birth father, Matthew Byrne, left behind a family of three sons in the United Kingdom before coming to New Zealand where he married my mother. My father was subsequently killed in an accident and I was later adopted by his mother’s second husband, Victor Anderton.
Terry Byrne’s son realised the connection between our two families after reading about the story of my search for my natural father’s family origins in Drogheda, a town of 30,000 people 30 kilometres from Dublin. The rest, as they say, is history.
Although I was initially sceptical, the connection from both documents and family photographs became irrefutable.
Terry Byrne is the last of my UK siblings, brother still alive and l will go to Liverpool sometime soon to meet him.
For more, go here.
WARNING: Asset sales on Government agenda
I have warned that further asset sales could be on the Government’s agenda, and this could be one step closer with the release of the second 2025 Taskforce report which recommends that the Government should further privatise publicly-owned assets.
In a recent speech to the Fabian Society, I said that the National Party may well target power companies, roads, Kiwibank and a number of strategic local government assets such as water services, ports and airports for sale. I said the sales would be necessary to pay for the October 2010 tax cuts which gave huge benefits to the richest New Zealanders.
Asset sales coincided with the most dramatic collapse in New Zealand’s economic well-being in recent history, and led to a dramatic gap between the rich and poor. We lost 30% per capita income against Australia between 1970 and 1999, with the worst period between 1984 and 1994, the peak period when both Labour and National were selling assets.
Most of the assets sold during that period were at bargain-basement prices, the top 40 going for a total of $19 billion, just over one half of their combined real market value of $36 billion.
No example is more stark than the New Zealand Railways which was hocked off for around $400 million and allowed to become completely run down by the new American and then Australian owners. Subsequently, the Government was forced to buy back the tracks and then the rail company itself to guarantee the future of rail. The same for Air New Zealand.
By contrast, assets that have been retained have been a success; Meridian Energy’s business in Australia has returned $600 million to the New Zealand taxpayer, and been used to help pay for hospitals and schools. Most New Zealanders are opposed to selling our strategic publicly owned assets – but we have seen it done before and the National Party is indicating they will do it again if they get another term in government.
The Alcohol Reform Bill
boozedaznz – worth watching! Go to this You Tube video.
Two Drinks Max: Lobby power.
The new Alcohol Reform Bill is due to have its first reading in Parliament soon, following which the Select Committee will call for submissions from the public. This is the final opportunity to send comment to the Government about its response to the Law Commission’s review on the use of alcohol in New Zealand.
The Bill will focus on youth drinking and does not propose to deal with drink drive issues for two years, until further research is done.
The main features of the Bill include:
· Splitting the purchase age for alcohol to 18 years for on-license premises and 20 for off-license (by conscience vote).
· Restricting ‘ready to drink’ (RTDs) to a maximum of 5% alcohol and 1.5 standard drinks equals 10 grams of pure alcohol.
· Strengthening laws around parental provision of alcohol to minors.
· Continuing industry self-regulation of marketing and advertising while strengthening restrictions on advertising targeted to under-18 year olds
· Introducing default licensing hours of 8am to 4am for an on-license premises and 7am to 11pm for off- licenses.
· Implementing voluntary, local alcohol plans.
· Cutting down on excessive alcohol promotions at point of sale.
· Clarifying the definition of a supermarket.
· Undertaking further research on the effect of setting minimum price levels.
· Undertaking further research on blood alcohol levels for driving.
Alcohol Action NZ has produced submission postcards calling on Parliament to:
· Put an end to cheap alcohol, beginning with a minimum price for a standard drink.
· Make supermarkets alcohol-free.
· Ban alcohol advertising and sponsorship.
· Reduce the adult blood alcohol level for driving to at least 0.05 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood (presently at 0.08).
FREE submission postcards can be obtained by emailing: coordinator@alcoholaction.co.nz
More information can be found here.
TVNZ responds to Henry complaint
TVNZ has confirmed that comments by former Breakfast host, Paul Henry about Governor-General Sir Anand Satyanand and Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit breached standards of good taste and decency, were unfair and encouraged discrimination, in the Governor-General’s case, against New Zealanders who are not of a particular ethnicity.
In a formal complaint to TVNZ, I said that the question by Paul Henry to Prime Minister John Key, asking whether the next Governor- General would look and sound like a New Zealander, was a significant slur on the dignity and origins of the Governor-General, and in the worst possible taste.
I said that it was only after he and thousands of other New Zealanders complained about Mr Henry’s comments that Television New Zealand took the matter seriously, eventually leading to Mr Henry’s resignation. The Breakfast Show host repeatedly pushed the boundaries of good taste and was encouraged to be controversial by the broadcaster in search of ratings for its morning programme. It is not credible for a public broadcaster to egg on Paul Henry and then distance itself when he goes too far and crosses the line, TVNZ too must share responsibility.
Similarly, it is alarming that John Key just sat there and grinned when Henry made his comment. No other New Zealand Prime Minister would have allowed the comment to go unchecked. It was a significant failure of leadership, made worse by his lack of real action subsequently.
The ‘Henry’ incident was an ideal opportunity for the Government to look at the role and obligations of Television New Zealand and to refocus its position to that of a responsible public broadcaster.
Anderton addresses students at Lincoln
Telling students what it is like to be a ‘one-man band’ in Parliament was just one of the topics on the agenda when I recently addressed students at Lincoln University, just outside Christchurch.
They were described to me as an inquisitive class and they were. The 130 first year students asked a range of questions about my experience in Parliament and Cabinet, particularly given my long experience under MMP and the demands of juggling various roles and portfolios while in Government.
Conceding that, as one MP, I can’t get everything done nor can I get the media attention I might want for any given issue. However, I told the students that I picked out and put a lot of effort into a number of important areas: affordable dental care, alcohol and drug policies, superannuation, suicide prevention, banking and government support for research and development and for innovation.
Also addressed was the way in which I and the Progressive Party worked to form a cooperative coalition with Labour in government, made easier by the closeness of the philosophies and outlook of the respective parties. Although working closely with Labour, I also maintained my independence which meant that I was able to promote issues where, for example, our two parties may have had differing priorities.
One thing, I told the audience was that, while MMP can be improved, it provides better representation than the old two party, first past the post system. MMP also provides that, while the Government always has the majority in Parliament, there are more limits on its power than under the first past the post election system - the best news, I believe, those wanting a democratic form of government could hear.
Jim's E-News September 2010
28/09/10 10:23
Get Jim’s E-News in your inbox here.
Election campaign issues Jim Anderton’s speech to Christchurch Rotary Club 21 September 2010
It is worth taking a moment to reflect once again on the trauma we have been through over the last two – three weeks. A similar strength earthquake earlier this year in Haiti killed 250,000 people. If it isn’t a miracle that everyone in our city is still alive after a 7.1 earthquake, I don’t know what would be. But the devastation has put us through trauma all the same. It’s brought shock, anxiety and stress.
We need each other – as individuals and as a community. We also need to be kind to ourselves and each other. We also need help – physical, social and psychological – to recover, and we need information as well as easy access to advice. And we need it now.
The heroes of the last ten days are all of us – the people of Christchurch – the people of Canterbury. It should make us proud to be Cantabrians and New Zealanders.
Canterbury Rugby teams are respected for their courage, determination and resilience.
The people of Canterbury will be held in awe by both current and future generations of New Zealanders for those same qualities – with one addition: their huge compassion and concern for one another.
The challenges which face our city now are at once a problem and a lifetime opportunity. We can rush it and risk getting the re-build badly wrong or we can engage with our whole community and bequeath a new heritage that will last for hundreds of years. We must make sure that Christchurch is rebuilt by people who respect what Christchurch stands for. A people’s Mayor is just that - a Mayor who puts people first. It is not a political left/right issue; it is simply an issue of priorities.
I do not believe that the people of this city want to throw away over 100 years of unique vision and heritage. I know you respect a ‘fair-go’ society too much to run the risk of it being ruined.
We must look ahead not just for three years, but for a hundred and more.
Christchurch was founded by settlers who quite simply believed that they could build a better way of life than the one they had left. It was tough but inclusive – and visionary. A case of, “we are our brother’s and sister’s keeper”, but we also expect you to do your bit. It is a strong tradition which we have unfortunately started to see unravel at the mayoral and Council level over the last three years.
In the end, the Mayoral and Council elections, voting for which has already started, will come down to trust.
Trust that your vote will win you respect and a voice at the Council table – not more of the same three-year sideshow this Mayor and Council have provided, fuelled with your money and favouring the exclusive vision of senior managers, not elected representatives. Christchurch deserves and needs better than that.
I promise to be a custodian of our tradition and heritage. I will renew and enrich them. We have in front of us both a sad and unique opportunity to rebuild Christchurch so that it is even better than ever.
What are the issues?
The problems we will have to resolve fall into several categories.
First, we need to help people get back on their feet - help families rebuild their lives, and businesses get back underway – and quickly. We need to rebuild our retail and commercial premises. And there will be an important role for the community organisation sector, as the glue that holds our society together
Second, we need a vision for our future. It should be a unified vision brought together through consultation and by trusting people. There are big decisions ahead - and I believe the previous council repeatedly made mistakes, because of secrecy and poor processes. It made those mistakes because of the poor way in which it made decisions.
Too often it took big decisions in secret, it didn’t consult, it didn’t release information - including fundamental information like how much big projects cost. And councillors voting records were not easily discoverable.
I want to rebuild a People’s City, so I will trust Christchurch people when we make big decisions. I won’t decide the future of the city in secret. I want to see the committees of Council re-instated to provide expertise and public participation while decisions are being considered, not after they have been made. The elected representatives, not Council officers must determine the policy direction of our City.
I want to see an urgent three-year action plan so that we can at least see the end in sight, and everyone knows where we are going. As part of the plan, we need to learn from this disaster so that we can make our city even safer
The third area that we have to address is our infrastructure and environment.
The clean up of our waterways, sewage and storm water is a chance to also make our city more environmentally sustainable.
And fourth, we need to be careful to preserve and rebuild Christchurch’s Arts and Cultural heritage – to the highest standard.
The inner city was dying before the earthquake. It can’t be used as an opportunity to shift development even faster and further out to the big malls, and to turn the inner city into a concrete wasteland.
We need affordable housing in the inner-city at the same time as we rebuild our neighborhoods.
So here’s what I would do
I would also set up a ‘People’s Commission’ to help rebuild our City, which I would chair as mayor. That would be supported by a new ‘Inner-City Revitalisation Unit’ with the best and brightest of Council officials directly responsible to the Mayor and Councillors.
I would involve business and community leaders, and all those with professional knowledge and experience – property owners, developers, business representatives, engineers, architects, urban design and heritage experts as well as representatives of ordinary Christchurch residents – all working co-operatively for the future of our great city.
We’ll hold open ‘People’s Forums’ for everyone to share in the ideas and decisions we need to take.
We all need to be part of the solution as we work to rebuild our city.
I want to stress the urgency of this. Big decisions are already underway about the future of Christchurch. I want all of those decisions to be made with an eye to rebuilding a People’s City.
They should be made with an eye towards a long term vision that all of Christchurch has had a chance to contribute to and own.
The Mayor has announced a Wellington based architect to lead the reconstruction. I wish there could be some consultative processes in place so that such decisions can be made in a more considered and democratic way.
For example, our rebuilding challenges need urban design leadership more than they need individual architects. These rushed and secretive decisions often turn out to have negative consequences and the names Henderson, Ellerslie, sandcastles and 24% social housing rent increases come to mind.
But the Henderson properties, and the Turners and Growers site, also now give us opportunities.
They should be developed for inner-city housing with commercial and retail facilities to assist their economic viability. This could be organised through a Council/ private sector partnership to help provide accommodation for thousands of people. Removing punitive development levies and other procedural obstacles would help to incentivise the re-build of our inner-city.
The knee jerk reaction to doubling earthquake strengthening measures may be one more nail in the coffin of inner-city re-development.
Civil Defence Headquarters
Finally, I want some hard questions asked about why the new $116 million Council Building was put out of action by the earthquake. It should have been the civil defence emergency centre for the city. But I now know that decisions were made that meant it could not have been.
I want to know what the local body leadership of the city was doing when these issues were discussed at regional civil defence meetings.
I don’t have any objection to the mayor’s actions since the earthquake, only support. But before the earthquake, - I am interested to know how many regional civil defence meetings the mayor attended in his term.
And I want to know what was done to make the $116 million council building ready to play its proper role as the civil defence headquarters. Remember, there was enough money in this building to buy a nice view from the top floor offices. There should have been readiness for an emergency. This made a material difference to the coordination of the response.
Communications were reduced because the glass surrounded Art Gallery (which ironically seems to have escaped unscathed) had to be used as the Civil Defence Headquarters.
What sort of civil defence headquarters after an earthquake is surrounded by glass?
Why wasn’t the new Council Building up to standard for use in an emergency?
Why wasn’t the specially prepared Regional Council Civil Defence Headquarters used by both the City and Regional Defence teams?
We have survived a miracle this time. But we have to learn from this experience and all of the debriefings have to be full, frank and public. The earthquake changed everything. We need to listen and include people in decision-making as Christchurch plans and reconstructs the city.
I want decisions about rebuilding Christchurch to be made in the open, not in secret. I want a city rebuilt for people, not secret deals for property developers.
We have a big job to do. Rebuilding infrastructure and a revitalised inner city is more important than wasting rates and increasing debt on projects beyond the resources of the city’s ratepayers. Standard and Poors were looking at a ratings review of Christchurch City Council’s debt situation prior to the earthquake.
Other funding – Canterbury Recovery Bonds, Government (Auckland motorway = $10B) EQC = $14B reserve fund
We have to get things done. I have a reputation for doing just that and I am putting my experience of central government (Acting PM, Dep. PM, Senior Minister for 9 years), local government ((MCC, ACC, ARC), and our local community (26 years MP for Sydenham/Wigram at the service of the people of Christchurch City if they wish to take advantage of it.
On alcohol reform - Government response predictable – but won’t cut it
This government has missed the best opportunity in a decade to reform our alcohol laws by failing to take the tough decisions that would actually make a difference to New Zealand’s drinking culture.
All the expert advice is that if you put up the price, consumption will decline. But this government is merely asking the industry to provide sales and pricing data over the next year, so that it can investigate a minimum pricing regime.
The National-led Government has chosen to cherry pick some recommendations while ignoring others. It has ignored the call for restrictions on the advertising and sponsorship of alcohol, for changes to the cost of alcohol to deter all drinkers, and for a clear message on the drinking age - an increase to 20 years old.
Splitting the drinking age sends a mixed message. It’s like saying ‘I sort of don’t want my teenagers to binge drink at the weekend. Just do it at the bar and I’ll turn a blind eye’.
I have campaigned for years to raise the age back to twenty years at bars and off-licenses. My colleague Matt Robson's Member's Bill provided for this back in 2005. But when it came to the Second Reading, the House failed to support an increase to the age.
I will be using my position as a Member of Parliament to move an amendment to raise the age for both bars and off-licenses. Given the two major parties are allowing a conscience vote on this, my amendment has a real chance of succeeding.
The changes announced today will not bring about the changes that are needed to tackle the drinking culture head-on. If John Key’s government had the courage to stand apart from the alcohol industry, it would have lowered the drink drive level to 50mg from its present level of 80mg.
The truth is the alcohol lobby has got to John Key’s government and they don’t have the guts to do what’s right.
Nick Smith’s suicide comments insensitive - again
The National-led government has cut counselling services for New Zealand families who have lost family members to suicide. Now to add insult to injury, it wheels out ACC Minister Nick Smith to make yet more ill-informed and insensitive comments about suicide victims.
Minister Nick Smith is quoted as saying that there is no difference between losing someone to suicide ‘to where a loved one is lost to heart disease or is lost to cancer.’
Regretfully, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. There is a difference. A sudden death is always a tragedy. But at least a post-mortem will tell a family - ‘You’re loved-one died of a heart attack.’ No post-mortem will ever tell the family of someone who has committed suicide why they did it.
The families are left in a state of shock with very little information. They blame themselves. And research has shown that there is a very real danger of other members of a family committing suicide unless they get the help they need after the loss.
As Associate Minister of Health in charge of the suicide prevention programme, in the last Labour-led government, I introduced new support services so that experienced clinical psychologists and Victim Support workers had the resources to help families after they have lost a loved one to suicide.
The National government has recently announced that it is cutting this service. The cost of the service nation-wide is about $3 million.
Mental health has always been the ‘Cinderella’ of the health system. Nick Smith is making things worse with his ignorant comments.
The number of recorded suicide deaths has been on a downward trend since these programmes were introduced.
Whilst the number of recorded suicide deaths remains high, there has been a significant downward trend in recent years, partly due to these programmes to help families after a suicide.
From a high of 516 deaths in 1999, this had fallen to 483 deaths in 2007.
Among young people, those aged 15 to 24 years, the trend was more marked dropping from 120 deaths in 1999 to 94 in 2007 – a drop of 21.7%.
Get Jim’s E-News in your inbox here.
Election campaign issues Jim Anderton’s speech to Christchurch Rotary Club 21 September 2010
It is worth taking a moment to reflect once again on the trauma we have been through over the last two – three weeks. A similar strength earthquake earlier this year in Haiti killed 250,000 people. If it isn’t a miracle that everyone in our city is still alive after a 7.1 earthquake, I don’t know what would be. But the devastation has put us through trauma all the same. It’s brought shock, anxiety and stress.
We need each other – as individuals and as a community. We also need to be kind to ourselves and each other. We also need help – physical, social and psychological – to recover, and we need information as well as easy access to advice. And we need it now.
The heroes of the last ten days are all of us – the people of Christchurch – the people of Canterbury. It should make us proud to be Cantabrians and New Zealanders.
Canterbury Rugby teams are respected for their courage, determination and resilience.
The people of Canterbury will be held in awe by both current and future generations of New Zealanders for those same qualities – with one addition: their huge compassion and concern for one another.
The challenges which face our city now are at once a problem and a lifetime opportunity. We can rush it and risk getting the re-build badly wrong or we can engage with our whole community and bequeath a new heritage that will last for hundreds of years. We must make sure that Christchurch is rebuilt by people who respect what Christchurch stands for. A people’s Mayor is just that - a Mayor who puts people first. It is not a political left/right issue; it is simply an issue of priorities.
I do not believe that the people of this city want to throw away over 100 years of unique vision and heritage. I know you respect a ‘fair-go’ society too much to run the risk of it being ruined.
We must look ahead not just for three years, but for a hundred and more.
Christchurch was founded by settlers who quite simply believed that they could build a better way of life than the one they had left. It was tough but inclusive – and visionary. A case of, “we are our brother’s and sister’s keeper”, but we also expect you to do your bit. It is a strong tradition which we have unfortunately started to see unravel at the mayoral and Council level over the last three years.
In the end, the Mayoral and Council elections, voting for which has already started, will come down to trust.
Trust that your vote will win you respect and a voice at the Council table – not more of the same three-year sideshow this Mayor and Council have provided, fuelled with your money and favouring the exclusive vision of senior managers, not elected representatives. Christchurch deserves and needs better than that.
I promise to be a custodian of our tradition and heritage. I will renew and enrich them. We have in front of us both a sad and unique opportunity to rebuild Christchurch so that it is even better than ever.
What are the issues?
The problems we will have to resolve fall into several categories.
First, we need to help people get back on their feet - help families rebuild their lives, and businesses get back underway – and quickly. We need to rebuild our retail and commercial premises. And there will be an important role for the community organisation sector, as the glue that holds our society together
Second, we need a vision for our future. It should be a unified vision brought together through consultation and by trusting people. There are big decisions ahead - and I believe the previous council repeatedly made mistakes, because of secrecy and poor processes. It made those mistakes because of the poor way in which it made decisions.
Too often it took big decisions in secret, it didn’t consult, it didn’t release information - including fundamental information like how much big projects cost. And councillors voting records were not easily discoverable.
I want to rebuild a People’s City, so I will trust Christchurch people when we make big decisions. I won’t decide the future of the city in secret. I want to see the committees of Council re-instated to provide expertise and public participation while decisions are being considered, not after they have been made. The elected representatives, not Council officers must determine the policy direction of our City.
I want to see an urgent three-year action plan so that we can at least see the end in sight, and everyone knows where we are going. As part of the plan, we need to learn from this disaster so that we can make our city even safer
The third area that we have to address is our infrastructure and environment.
The clean up of our waterways, sewage and storm water is a chance to also make our city more environmentally sustainable.
And fourth, we need to be careful to preserve and rebuild Christchurch’s Arts and Cultural heritage – to the highest standard.
The inner city was dying before the earthquake. It can’t be used as an opportunity to shift development even faster and further out to the big malls, and to turn the inner city into a concrete wasteland.
We need affordable housing in the inner-city at the same time as we rebuild our neighborhoods.
So here’s what I would do
I would also set up a ‘People’s Commission’ to help rebuild our City, which I would chair as mayor. That would be supported by a new ‘Inner-City Revitalisation Unit’ with the best and brightest of Council officials directly responsible to the Mayor and Councillors.
I would involve business and community leaders, and all those with professional knowledge and experience – property owners, developers, business representatives, engineers, architects, urban design and heritage experts as well as representatives of ordinary Christchurch residents – all working co-operatively for the future of our great city.
We’ll hold open ‘People’s Forums’ for everyone to share in the ideas and decisions we need to take.
We all need to be part of the solution as we work to rebuild our city.
I want to stress the urgency of this. Big decisions are already underway about the future of Christchurch. I want all of those decisions to be made with an eye to rebuilding a People’s City.
They should be made with an eye towards a long term vision that all of Christchurch has had a chance to contribute to and own.
The Mayor has announced a Wellington based architect to lead the reconstruction. I wish there could be some consultative processes in place so that such decisions can be made in a more considered and democratic way.
For example, our rebuilding challenges need urban design leadership more than they need individual architects. These rushed and secretive decisions often turn out to have negative consequences and the names Henderson, Ellerslie, sandcastles and 24% social housing rent increases come to mind.
But the Henderson properties, and the Turners and Growers site, also now give us opportunities.
They should be developed for inner-city housing with commercial and retail facilities to assist their economic viability. This could be organised through a Council/ private sector partnership to help provide accommodation for thousands of people. Removing punitive development levies and other procedural obstacles would help to incentivise the re-build of our inner-city.
The knee jerk reaction to doubling earthquake strengthening measures may be one more nail in the coffin of inner-city re-development.
Civil Defence Headquarters
Finally, I want some hard questions asked about why the new $116 million Council Building was put out of action by the earthquake. It should have been the civil defence emergency centre for the city. But I now know that decisions were made that meant it could not have been.
I want to know what the local body leadership of the city was doing when these issues were discussed at regional civil defence meetings.
I don’t have any objection to the mayor’s actions since the earthquake, only support. But before the earthquake, - I am interested to know how many regional civil defence meetings the mayor attended in his term.
And I want to know what was done to make the $116 million council building ready to play its proper role as the civil defence headquarters. Remember, there was enough money in this building to buy a nice view from the top floor offices. There should have been readiness for an emergency. This made a material difference to the coordination of the response.
Communications were reduced because the glass surrounded Art Gallery (which ironically seems to have escaped unscathed) had to be used as the Civil Defence Headquarters.
What sort of civil defence headquarters after an earthquake is surrounded by glass?
Why wasn’t the new Council Building up to standard for use in an emergency?
Why wasn’t the specially prepared Regional Council Civil Defence Headquarters used by both the City and Regional Defence teams?
We have survived a miracle this time. But we have to learn from this experience and all of the debriefings have to be full, frank and public. The earthquake changed everything. We need to listen and include people in decision-making as Christchurch plans and reconstructs the city.
I want decisions about rebuilding Christchurch to be made in the open, not in secret. I want a city rebuilt for people, not secret deals for property developers.
We have a big job to do. Rebuilding infrastructure and a revitalised inner city is more important than wasting rates and increasing debt on projects beyond the resources of the city’s ratepayers. Standard and Poors were looking at a ratings review of Christchurch City Council’s debt situation prior to the earthquake.
Other funding – Canterbury Recovery Bonds, Government (Auckland motorway = $10B) EQC = $14B reserve fund
We have to get things done. I have a reputation for doing just that and I am putting my experience of central government (Acting PM, Dep. PM, Senior Minister for 9 years), local government ((MCC, ACC, ARC), and our local community (26 years MP for Sydenham/Wigram at the service of the people of Christchurch City if they wish to take advantage of it.
On alcohol reform - Government response predictable – but won’t cut it
This government has missed the best opportunity in a decade to reform our alcohol laws by failing to take the tough decisions that would actually make a difference to New Zealand’s drinking culture.
All the expert advice is that if you put up the price, consumption will decline. But this government is merely asking the industry to provide sales and pricing data over the next year, so that it can investigate a minimum pricing regime.
The National-led Government has chosen to cherry pick some recommendations while ignoring others. It has ignored the call for restrictions on the advertising and sponsorship of alcohol, for changes to the cost of alcohol to deter all drinkers, and for a clear message on the drinking age - an increase to 20 years old.
Splitting the drinking age sends a mixed message. It’s like saying ‘I sort of don’t want my teenagers to binge drink at the weekend. Just do it at the bar and I’ll turn a blind eye’.
I have campaigned for years to raise the age back to twenty years at bars and off-licenses. My colleague Matt Robson's Member's Bill provided for this back in 2005. But when it came to the Second Reading, the House failed to support an increase to the age.
I will be using my position as a Member of Parliament to move an amendment to raise the age for both bars and off-licenses. Given the two major parties are allowing a conscience vote on this, my amendment has a real chance of succeeding.
The changes announced today will not bring about the changes that are needed to tackle the drinking culture head-on. If John Key’s government had the courage to stand apart from the alcohol industry, it would have lowered the drink drive level to 50mg from its present level of 80mg.
The truth is the alcohol lobby has got to John Key’s government and they don’t have the guts to do what’s right.
Nick Smith’s suicide comments insensitive - again
The National-led government has cut counselling services for New Zealand families who have lost family members to suicide. Now to add insult to injury, it wheels out ACC Minister Nick Smith to make yet more ill-informed and insensitive comments about suicide victims.
Minister Nick Smith is quoted as saying that there is no difference between losing someone to suicide ‘to where a loved one is lost to heart disease or is lost to cancer.’
Regretfully, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. There is a difference. A sudden death is always a tragedy. But at least a post-mortem will tell a family - ‘You’re loved-one died of a heart attack.’ No post-mortem will ever tell the family of someone who has committed suicide why they did it.
The families are left in a state of shock with very little information. They blame themselves. And research has shown that there is a very real danger of other members of a family committing suicide unless they get the help they need after the loss.
As Associate Minister of Health in charge of the suicide prevention programme, in the last Labour-led government, I introduced new support services so that experienced clinical psychologists and Victim Support workers had the resources to help families after they have lost a loved one to suicide.
The National government has recently announced that it is cutting this service. The cost of the service nation-wide is about $3 million.
Mental health has always been the ‘Cinderella’ of the health system. Nick Smith is making things worse with his ignorant comments.
The number of recorded suicide deaths has been on a downward trend since these programmes were introduced.
Whilst the number of recorded suicide deaths remains high, there has been a significant downward trend in recent years, partly due to these programmes to help families after a suicide.
From a high of 516 deaths in 1999, this had fallen to 483 deaths in 2007.
Among young people, those aged 15 to 24 years, the trend was more marked dropping from 120 deaths in 1999 to 94 in 2007 – a drop of 21.7%.
Get Jim’s E-News in your inbox here.
Jim’s E-News July 2010
03/08/10 14:17
Jim’s E-News July 2010.
Lowering the drink-drive limit is popular - why not do it? This government is so desperate to be liked it’ll make policy turns on anything unpopular, from Kiwibank and mining to foreign ownership of our land. So why won’t they follow the lead of 70% of New Zealanders who want to see the drink-drive limit lowered?
In Parliament this week, I criticised Transport Minister Steven Joyce for refusing to lower the drink-drive limit to 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood, in line with most other OECD countries like Australia.
At the moment the limit is 80mg. That is about 80% of a bottle of wine for an average man and about 60% of a bottle for an average woman, over a two hour period.
The URM poll shows that 70% of New Zealanders support lowering the drink-drive limit. Another poll on TVNZ’s Close Up program last night found that 68% favoured lowering the limit.
The truth is the alcohol lobby has got to John Key’s government and it has’t got the guts to do what’s right.
I asked Steven Joyce how he could reconcile his comments last year that the existing drink-driving limit was ‘ridiculous’ with his decision this week to spend two more years researching the ‘ridiculous’ limit.
The Motor Trade Association have said that it's surprised that the government needs a further two years of research. Our level is already high by international standards, and alcohol is recognised as a significant contributor to New Zealand's high road toll.
The Ministry of Transport has estimated that reducing the limit could save up to 33 lives, prevent as many as 680 injuries, and save up to $238 million every year.
We don’t need more research. We know that people are able to drive in this country while clinically intoxicated. That’s not good enough. What we need now is urgent action.
John Key’s government has shoved the issue in the too hard basket for reasons it is difficult to fathom.
How to keep your power bill down I chaired a public meeting last Sunday for Christchurch residents to hear from the experts on how to keep their energy bills down this winter.
Power companies based on hydro power, for example, do not emit lots of carbon, so they don’t have to pay a carbon fee. But they benefit from higher market prices for electricity.
These government-owned companies pay a dividend to the government. The profits come back to the government. There is no reason why the government can’t give some of that windfall profit back to you.
In the last election I campaigned for a $200 power rebate for people on low incomes. The chilling reality is that some people face winter power bills they simply can’t afford. When you are on a fixed income and then you get a $400 monthly power bill coming through the mail, how is that going to be paid for?
Just a quarter of the power companies’ gross profits would pay for a $200 winter power rebate for every low income household in New Zealand. That includes superannuitants.
Other countries have a winter rebate. In the UK for example the government provides a winter fuel payment of £250 for over 60s and £400 for over-80s. The State of Victoria in Australia has a similar scheme.
But I wouldn’t hold your breath with this National government. We managed to keep the ‘For Sale’ signs away from Kiwibank. But John Key has made it clear that the publically owned electricity companies could well be up for sale.
If that happens, one thing is for sure. Your power bills will go up even higher, and there will never be a chance for a winter rebate again.
A meeting like this can not only give useful advice on savings for your power bills but can give information on what to do if John Key and his government decide to sell the power companies. People need to be warned. Ask your local Member of Parliament to hold a meeting in your electorate on these issues.
Practical measures to save money on your power bills Community Energy Action’s Bede Martin and Orion Energy’s Roger Sutton set about providing practical solutions and advice at the Christchurch meeting on making efficient use of energy and reducing electricity bills this winter. The key things they recommended that can be done around the home to save $s are:
Community Energy Action’s Warm Babies Programme and Elderly Health Programme provide subsidies for those in the community most in need of a warm home to stay healthy. For more information Community Energy Action Trust on 03 374 7222 www.cea.co.nz or for advice call 0800 388 588 or www.energyadvice.org.nz
There is no way back to Kansas: Anderton speech in the House, 21 July We have just heard from the former spokesperson on the eradication of political correctness. And he wants to know why we were not making any noise while he spoke. It was because we were asleep. This is a government with no plan and no new ideas, but lots of smiles from Mr Key who is starting to look like a poor man’s Wizard of Oz. He is like a travelling magician who pulls out another trick every time that the one before does not work.
But we can only trick Dorothy and the Tin Man for so long, because the people of New Zealand are starting to see there is no plan. There is no way back to Kansas.
What has the Wizard of New Zealand pulled out of his bag so far? The 2025 Task Force? Don Brash has failed to deliver and is being kept on, to give another report next year. Yet he has run out of money already. That is some trick for the former Governor of the Reserve Bank, who was in charge of New Zealand’s monetary policy. He runs out of his budget in the first year of the task force.
Then we had the Job’s Summit. How is that going? There are no new jobs. Unemployment is on the rise. The government that my colleagues on my right and I were in halved unemployment to 4 percent by the time we went out of office. This government has increased unemployment by 50 percent already, and it is still rising.
Now the rate has almost returned to what it was under the previous National Government, and we cannot blame that on the recession, especially when the only idea to save jobs was a 9-day fortnight. That was meant to save thousands of jobs, by getting people to work less so that they were paid less, and businesses stayed afloat. That was the idea. At most it saved 100 jobs, for the whole of New Zealand.
Then John Key came up with another wizard idea. Employees could sell the fourth week of their holidays. That means the solution to New Zealand’s problems is to get people to work longer. Previously the solution was for people to work less, and now it is for them to work longer.
Then we had the cycle way. This was meant to create jobs. The cycle way was the great new innovation for New Zealand. Tourist industries were meant to pop up all along the cycle way. All we have seen so far is pictures of John Key on a bike, smiling as always. It will take more than a pushbike and a cycle way in New Zealand to fix up the New Zealand economy.
However, the government has the answer; it is mining. We dig up the country, just like Australia, and we’ll catch up to Australia. What happened to that idea? It is another flip-flop, because the smiling Prime Minister does not want to be unpopular. He discovered that this idea was not at all popular.
40,000 people marching in Queen Street convinced him of that. So that is not going to happen. If John Key and his government were serious about growing the economy, they would not pay just lip service to the farming sector. That sector is our largest economic earner. The truth is that agriculture makes up 43 percent of New Zealand’s exports.
There is nothing wrong with supporting tourism, but there is a heck of a lot wrong with not supporting farming, and ignoring it. If he thinks we can grow the New Zealand economy while ignoring the farming sector and building cycle ways, he is dreaming.
What kind of Mickey Mouse economics smashes the Fast Forward Fund for research in the primary sector, and cancels the Research and Development tax credit for business, in favour of a cycle way? We do away with the New Zealand Fast Forward Fund, we do away with research and development rebates for business, but we replace them with a cycle way. Now that will work. Yeah, right!
Handing over agriculture portfolio
I have announced I am handing over the role of opposition agriculture spokesperson as I want to give someone else the opportunity to get up to speed before next year’s election, given that I won’t be standing for Parliament again.
In my remaining time as an MP, I have decided to prioritise workable models for affordable dental treatment and the reform of alcohol legislation.
The Progressive Party campaigned for affordable dental treatment in the 2008 election. I have also been an active spokesperson for the +5 solution to alcohol reform which involves increasing the purchase age and curbing the sale and marketing of alcohol.
During my term as Minister of Agriculture and Forestry from 2005 to 2008, I set out to put the farming sector back where it should be, at the centre of the government’s economic strategy, after it had been demoted to a ‘sunset industry’ by former governments. I created the Fast Forward Fund which would have seen $2000 million go towards research and development in the primary sector. I will continue to advocate for agricultural issues in public life.
Affordable dental care update Since the last election, I've been looking at what it would take to introduce affordable dental care for all New Zealanders. It can be done. Our research tell us that it would cost less than $1 billion to finance basic dental care for the whole population. That includes the money we already spend on free visits for under 18 year olds. And it includes the cost of those who end up in emergency departments.
It would cost even less to give just the over 65s affordable care. I'm realistic that we would need to introduce subsidised care in stages, just like we did when we introduced affordable GP visits under a Labour-Progressive government. So why not start with the over 65s? We could raise this money either through income tax, or through a small ACC type earner’s levy. In return, people get a life time of free or affordable dental treatment.
The problem of looking after teeth in your later years is only going to get worse as the baby boomers age. In my parent’s day, teeth were extracted and false teeth provided, often as a 21st birthday present! The baby boomer generation on the other hand, will go into old age with their own teeth, often heavily filled and a number of them missing.
They're going to need help.
The other problem we have is a shortage of dentists in some provincial areas of New Zealand. There's a straight forward solution to that problem too. Bonding. At the moment young doctors can have their student loans paid off, if they agree to work in hard to staff areas for the first few years after they graduate. That scheme should be extended to dentists. It's already been extended to vets. If you have an emergency dental problem in Gisborne over the weekend, you have to drive to Napier. But getting young 'pioneer dentists' to Gisborne to work would solve that problem. Those young dentists might decide they like the East Coast lifestyle, and stay for even longer.
At the moment dental care is too expensive and fifty per cent of New Zealanders do not receive regular dental care. That's a national crisis and something has to be done. The solutions are staring us in the face, and I'll continue to fight for affordable dental treatment for all New Zealanders.
On ACC Earlier this year Ruth Dyson and I highlighted the actions of Nick Smith and the ACC which resulted in the imposition of unreasonable rules on those seeking surgery to remedy injuries caused by accidents. We predicted there would be a flood of ACC claimants seeking access to elective surgery because ACC would not fund them.
The Budget papers, released 10 days ago have proven us right.
In the first six months of last year, ACC turned down 5019 applications for surgery and the extra money Tony Ryall highlighted as being available for additional elective surgery, has gone to treat these cases with, of course, no reduction in the numbers of the waiting lists.
SIGN UP TO RECEIVE JIM’S E-NEWS IN YOUR INBOX HERE.
Lowering the drink-drive limit is popular - why not do it? This government is so desperate to be liked it’ll make policy turns on anything unpopular, from Kiwibank and mining to foreign ownership of our land. So why won’t they follow the lead of 70% of New Zealanders who want to see the drink-drive limit lowered?
In Parliament this week, I criticised Transport Minister Steven Joyce for refusing to lower the drink-drive limit to 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood, in line with most other OECD countries like Australia.
At the moment the limit is 80mg. That is about 80% of a bottle of wine for an average man and about 60% of a bottle for an average woman, over a two hour period.
The URM poll shows that 70% of New Zealanders support lowering the drink-drive limit. Another poll on TVNZ’s Close Up program last night found that 68% favoured lowering the limit.
The truth is the alcohol lobby has got to John Key’s government and it has’t got the guts to do what’s right.
I asked Steven Joyce how he could reconcile his comments last year that the existing drink-driving limit was ‘ridiculous’ with his decision this week to spend two more years researching the ‘ridiculous’ limit.
The Motor Trade Association have said that it's surprised that the government needs a further two years of research. Our level is already high by international standards, and alcohol is recognised as a significant contributor to New Zealand's high road toll.
The Ministry of Transport has estimated that reducing the limit could save up to 33 lives, prevent as many as 680 injuries, and save up to $238 million every year.
We don’t need more research. We know that people are able to drive in this country while clinically intoxicated. That’s not good enough. What we need now is urgent action.
John Key’s government has shoved the issue in the too hard basket for reasons it is difficult to fathom.
How to keep your power bill down I chaired a public meeting last Sunday for Christchurch residents to hear from the experts on how to keep their energy bills down this winter.
Power companies based on hydro power, for example, do not emit lots of carbon, so they don’t have to pay a carbon fee. But they benefit from higher market prices for electricity.
These government-owned companies pay a dividend to the government. The profits come back to the government. There is no reason why the government can’t give some of that windfall profit back to you.
In the last election I campaigned for a $200 power rebate for people on low incomes. The chilling reality is that some people face winter power bills they simply can’t afford. When you are on a fixed income and then you get a $400 monthly power bill coming through the mail, how is that going to be paid for?
Just a quarter of the power companies’ gross profits would pay for a $200 winter power rebate for every low income household in New Zealand. That includes superannuitants.
Other countries have a winter rebate. In the UK for example the government provides a winter fuel payment of £250 for over 60s and £400 for over-80s. The State of Victoria in Australia has a similar scheme.
But I wouldn’t hold your breath with this National government. We managed to keep the ‘For Sale’ signs away from Kiwibank. But John Key has made it clear that the publically owned electricity companies could well be up for sale.
If that happens, one thing is for sure. Your power bills will go up even higher, and there will never be a chance for a winter rebate again.
A meeting like this can not only give useful advice on savings for your power bills but can give information on what to do if John Key and his government decide to sell the power companies. People need to be warned. Ask your local Member of Parliament to hold a meeting in your electorate on these issues.
Practical measures to save money on your power bills Community Energy Action’s Bede Martin and Orion Energy’s Roger Sutton set about providing practical solutions and advice at the Christchurch meeting on making efficient use of energy and reducing electricity bills this winter. The key things they recommended that can be done around the home to save $s are:
- Windows are the single biggest cause of lost heat. Insulation Kits will cut down drafts and make a big difference to the warmth of your home.
- Curtains, if drawn before the temperatures drop late afternoon, will keep the warmth in.
- Use ‘door sausages’ to reduce drafts.
- Fit plastic door and window seals to keep drafts out.
- Dry clothes outside to avoid the build up of moist air.
- Shop around the power companies for the competitive price plans or talk to your power company about your options.
- A night plan on your electricity bill can cut down power usage by 20%.
- By spending $50 on energy efficient bulbs, you can save an average of $100 a year.
- Heating water is one of the single biggest energy users. Insulating your water cylinder can save up to $100 a year on the fuel bill.
- Roof insulation can save up to $500 a year.
- Turning the beer fridge on only in the weekend can save $100 a year.
- Turning off a heated towel rail can save $100 a year.
- $150 a year is being wasted on appliances left on stand-by mode.
- Avoid using unflued gas heaters as they create moisture and are very expensive to run, plus they have health disadvantages.
- It is not necessary to have a heat pump running continuously. Put it on a timer and only use to heat up rooms when required.
- Shower rather than bath to save on hot water.
- Shop around for the best deals with insulation and heating options. Some companies quote a lower level of insulation or energy efficiency than is practical.
Community Energy Action’s Warm Babies Programme and Elderly Health Programme provide subsidies for those in the community most in need of a warm home to stay healthy. For more information Community Energy Action Trust on 03 374 7222 www.cea.co.nz or for advice call 0800 388 588 or www.energyadvice.org.nz
There is no way back to Kansas: Anderton speech in the House, 21 July We have just heard from the former spokesperson on the eradication of political correctness. And he wants to know why we were not making any noise while he spoke. It was because we were asleep. This is a government with no plan and no new ideas, but lots of smiles from Mr Key who is starting to look like a poor man’s Wizard of Oz. He is like a travelling magician who pulls out another trick every time that the one before does not work.
But we can only trick Dorothy and the Tin Man for so long, because the people of New Zealand are starting to see there is no plan. There is no way back to Kansas.
What has the Wizard of New Zealand pulled out of his bag so far? The 2025 Task Force? Don Brash has failed to deliver and is being kept on, to give another report next year. Yet he has run out of money already. That is some trick for the former Governor of the Reserve Bank, who was in charge of New Zealand’s monetary policy. He runs out of his budget in the first year of the task force.
Then we had the Job’s Summit. How is that going? There are no new jobs. Unemployment is on the rise. The government that my colleagues on my right and I were in halved unemployment to 4 percent by the time we went out of office. This government has increased unemployment by 50 percent already, and it is still rising.
Now the rate has almost returned to what it was under the previous National Government, and we cannot blame that on the recession, especially when the only idea to save jobs was a 9-day fortnight. That was meant to save thousands of jobs, by getting people to work less so that they were paid less, and businesses stayed afloat. That was the idea. At most it saved 100 jobs, for the whole of New Zealand.
Then John Key came up with another wizard idea. Employees could sell the fourth week of their holidays. That means the solution to New Zealand’s problems is to get people to work longer. Previously the solution was for people to work less, and now it is for them to work longer.
Then we had the cycle way. This was meant to create jobs. The cycle way was the great new innovation for New Zealand. Tourist industries were meant to pop up all along the cycle way. All we have seen so far is pictures of John Key on a bike, smiling as always. It will take more than a pushbike and a cycle way in New Zealand to fix up the New Zealand economy.
However, the government has the answer; it is mining. We dig up the country, just like Australia, and we’ll catch up to Australia. What happened to that idea? It is another flip-flop, because the smiling Prime Minister does not want to be unpopular. He discovered that this idea was not at all popular.
40,000 people marching in Queen Street convinced him of that. So that is not going to happen. If John Key and his government were serious about growing the economy, they would not pay just lip service to the farming sector. That sector is our largest economic earner. The truth is that agriculture makes up 43 percent of New Zealand’s exports.
There is nothing wrong with supporting tourism, but there is a heck of a lot wrong with not supporting farming, and ignoring it. If he thinks we can grow the New Zealand economy while ignoring the farming sector and building cycle ways, he is dreaming.
What kind of Mickey Mouse economics smashes the Fast Forward Fund for research in the primary sector, and cancels the Research and Development tax credit for business, in favour of a cycle way? We do away with the New Zealand Fast Forward Fund, we do away with research and development rebates for business, but we replace them with a cycle way. Now that will work. Yeah, right!
Handing over agriculture portfolio
I have announced I am handing over the role of opposition agriculture spokesperson as I want to give someone else the opportunity to get up to speed before next year’s election, given that I won’t be standing for Parliament again.
In my remaining time as an MP, I have decided to prioritise workable models for affordable dental treatment and the reform of alcohol legislation.
The Progressive Party campaigned for affordable dental treatment in the 2008 election. I have also been an active spokesperson for the +5 solution to alcohol reform which involves increasing the purchase age and curbing the sale and marketing of alcohol.
During my term as Minister of Agriculture and Forestry from 2005 to 2008, I set out to put the farming sector back where it should be, at the centre of the government’s economic strategy, after it had been demoted to a ‘sunset industry’ by former governments. I created the Fast Forward Fund which would have seen $2000 million go towards research and development in the primary sector. I will continue to advocate for agricultural issues in public life.
Affordable dental care update Since the last election, I've been looking at what it would take to introduce affordable dental care for all New Zealanders. It can be done. Our research tell us that it would cost less than $1 billion to finance basic dental care for the whole population. That includes the money we already spend on free visits for under 18 year olds. And it includes the cost of those who end up in emergency departments.
It would cost even less to give just the over 65s affordable care. I'm realistic that we would need to introduce subsidised care in stages, just like we did when we introduced affordable GP visits under a Labour-Progressive government. So why not start with the over 65s? We could raise this money either through income tax, or through a small ACC type earner’s levy. In return, people get a life time of free or affordable dental treatment.
The problem of looking after teeth in your later years is only going to get worse as the baby boomers age. In my parent’s day, teeth were extracted and false teeth provided, often as a 21st birthday present! The baby boomer generation on the other hand, will go into old age with their own teeth, often heavily filled and a number of them missing.
They're going to need help.
The other problem we have is a shortage of dentists in some provincial areas of New Zealand. There's a straight forward solution to that problem too. Bonding. At the moment young doctors can have their student loans paid off, if they agree to work in hard to staff areas for the first few years after they graduate. That scheme should be extended to dentists. It's already been extended to vets. If you have an emergency dental problem in Gisborne over the weekend, you have to drive to Napier. But getting young 'pioneer dentists' to Gisborne to work would solve that problem. Those young dentists might decide they like the East Coast lifestyle, and stay for even longer.
At the moment dental care is too expensive and fifty per cent of New Zealanders do not receive regular dental care. That's a national crisis and something has to be done. The solutions are staring us in the face, and I'll continue to fight for affordable dental treatment for all New Zealanders.
On ACC Earlier this year Ruth Dyson and I highlighted the actions of Nick Smith and the ACC which resulted in the imposition of unreasonable rules on those seeking surgery to remedy injuries caused by accidents. We predicted there would be a flood of ACC claimants seeking access to elective surgery because ACC would not fund them.
The Budget papers, released 10 days ago have proven us right.
In the first six months of last year, ACC turned down 5019 applications for surgery and the extra money Tony Ryall highlighted as being available for additional elective surgery, has gone to treat these cases with, of course, no reduction in the numbers of the waiting lists.
SIGN UP TO RECEIVE JIM’S E-NEWS IN YOUR INBOX HERE.
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.
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.