Latest News RSS

Jim's E-News, October 2011

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-11-09T12:58:08+13:00

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!

Jim Anderton - Valedictory speech

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-10-04T18:06:31+13:00

Jim Anderton, thanked by Labour leader Phil Goff at Labour’s caucus last week.

Unlike some other MPs I've heard say that from the age of 14 years they wanted to be Prime Minister, I never had any ambition to be a member of parliament. My early ambition was to be a New Zealand Cricketer, or an All Black.

And with Dan Carter out, if Graham Henry is still looking for depth at first five....I am happy to pick up the phone! But I am not holding my breath!

So I didn't have a searing ambition to be a politician.

That might have been because I went to a school called Seddon Tech, a school, in those days, looking back now, for street kids, of whom not much was expected.

But educational planners were wrong to set their sights so low for us, and some of our best teachers didn't.

One of my classmates was Bruce McLaren, a polio victim who at 15 years of age was building a racing car in the school's engineering workshop, and went on to win the NZ Grand Prix - although not in that car.

Today, his McLaren brand is still winning Grand Prix races over forty years after he was killed in practice in the UK at the age of 32.

I gained confidence from kids around me like Bruce who showed that we could be anything and do anything we wanted to be or do. So I grew up with the conviction that one person could make a difference.

As Irish statesman Edmund Burke once observed, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Growing up in poorer, working class suburbs of Auckland, I noticed power pylons were in Mangere, Otahuhu and Mt Roskill, not Remuera or Epsom. The sewage treatment plant was in Mangere, off Puketutu Island in the Manukau Harbour, not on Brown's Island off St Heliers or Mission Bay beaches and the Waitemata Harbour where it was originally planned to be.

There were no Maori in the All Black teams to South Africa. The proliferation of nuclear weapons, and New Zealand's involvement in wars that were clearly not ours and in addition were, in the case of Vietnam, irrational in the context of the history of that country, yet were all considered, New Zealand government, policies.

My own philosophic development through this period was heavily influenced by my conversion to Catholicism as a teenager, and a resulting commitment to Christian teachings in support of social and economic justice.

So I joined the Mangere Bridge branch of the Labour Party and they made me Vice-President at the first meeting I went to. The following week I went to my first meeting of the Manukau Labour Electorate Committee and they made me president. I began to wonder at that rate whether I would end up in Wellington as leader of the party by the end of the next week.

At the tender age of 27, I stood for and was elected to, the Manukau City Council, together with my socialist colleague Roger Douglas. And we set about the public purchase of large tracts of land on which to develop our new city. The idea of selling public assets never occurred to either of us! We made use of the libraries and swimming pools free of charge.

And later I was elected to the Auckland City Council, the Auckland Regional Authority, and then President of the NZ Labour Party.

To the extreme annoyance of many politicians on all sides of politics, Time magazine, completely out of left field, selected me as 'a New Zealand leader of the future'.

I worked with Norman Kirk, who was the greatest political orator I ever heard, and later Bill Rowling, when I was President of the NZLP. Bill was the most under-rated politician I have ever known and one of the grittiest and courageous politicians I ever met.

I remember Bill and I looking at grim polling news over a beer in the lounge of his Leader's office, in 1981, and it indicated that if trends continued then on election day Labour would get no votes whatever!

We actually went on to win more votes than the Muldoon-led National Party - but still lost - an early cause of the electoral dissatisfaction that led to the change to MMP.

My message to Phil Goff is to 'hang in there' - elections are not over till they are over! To beat the National Party of the day, we had to catch and roll over the much vaunted political machine of Sir George Chapman, then the highly effective National Party President - and we did! By 1984 Labour had more than 100,000 party members.

The year before, I moved from the city of my birth, Auckland, to my adopted city of Christchurch. The people of Sydenham, and now Wigram, have been both loyal and generous to me, through four political parties, which must be some kind of record - and nine consecutive general elections.

And the greatest satisfaction I've had in politics is to be able to have helped thousands of individuals and hundreds of communities in ways almost no other occupation can make possible.

But it gave me no satisfaction at all to see that the government we had all worked so hard to elect in 1984, sheet inequality into New Zealand, through huge tax cuts for the rich, GST for everyone, and the most regressive financial shift in income and wealth inequality in New Zealand history

The gap between rich and poor widened by 127% (or 14 % per year) between 1984-90 and New Zealand has never recovered from that enormous chasm. GDP between 1984 and 1993 grew by only ½% per year - while the world economy was growing rapidly. Compare this to the Clark-led government of 1999 - 2008 where, in real terms, NZ's GDP grew by 36% - an average of 4% per year or 8 times more growth.

Social policy should always accompany economic policy, but it was never taken into account while immense social damage was done to New Zealand in the eighties and early nineties. No one says change wasn't necessary, but the scale, timing and impact of change were borne largely by poorer New Zealanders.

And while we made some considerable difference between 1999 and 2008, we are still dealing with child poverty, the decline in core services like education, health care and housing, and with radical inequality.

According to OECD figures, poverty in New Zealand is highest among children - around 15 per cent of them. None of us here can be proud of that. The top ten per cent of households own 500 times more than the bottom ten per cent. The kind of society our ancestors left in droves.

Inequality affects everything about our lives, it is unfair, and it is avoidable.

That's why I left Labour in 1989 to form the NewLabour Party.

I genuinely thought at the time (along with most commentators), that I was heading for political oblivion. Quite a few members of parliament at the time assured me with some enthusiasm that I was.

When I stood in the 1990 election as the NewLabour candidate for Sydenham, many thought they were going to see the back of me. Yet the only MPs from that parliament who are still here are Phil Goff, Annette King, Mr Speaker, Trevor Mallard, and Ross Robertson and Peter Dunne.

So the lesson from that is that even certain demise sometimes gets delayed, and voters appreciate political principle as well as pragmatic self-interest.

It really is worth sticking up for what you believe.

The promises broken by successive governments, both National and Labour from 1984 to 1993 led to the dramatic changes which have taken place in parliament under MMP.

I remember 93 per cent of the population was against the sale of Telecom, and Richard Prebble told parliament at the time that: "New Zealand is 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.

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.

I have no doubt that I also made the right decision in joining with others to form NewLabour when I did, then taking it into the Alliance with other parties, and later, when the Alliance was set to become a threat to an enlightened government rather than a supporter of it, forming the Progressives as a coalition partner for Labour.

I have no regrets about any of that. Under the same circumstances I would do exactly the same again.

There was no point being part of a party when I couldn't, in all honesty, ask my constituents at that time to vote for it. And there is no point in asking your constituents for their vote if you don't intend to take on the opportunity and responsibility of being in government, regardless of the risk of doing so to smaller parties. Because only by sitting around the Cabinet Table helping to make the decisions can you make the greatest contribution to the well-being of those you claim to represent.

That's why I rejected the idea that we could ask people to vote for us to go into Opposition.

As I have said often, one bad day in Government is better than a thousand good days in Opposition.

I'm proud of the difference I tried to make in government. I pay tribute to Helen Clark, who had the clearest and most insightful understanding of anyone I have ever worked with in politics, and to the positive difference the government she led made to New Zealand.

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.

Put that against the record of previous governments, and in particular the performance of our economy after it was restructured in the 1980s.

New Zealand went into recession in 1987 and our economy wasn't as big again as it was in that year until 1993. Six lost years. And yet between 1999 and 2008, it grew in real terms by 36 per cent.

Incidentally, our economy is still smaller in 2011 than it was in 2008, which shows how the entire country loses out when inequality grows.

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. We should constantly be celebrating our culture of success.

Ernest Rutherford once said "New Zealand doesn't have much money so we have to think."

And our core industries - sectors like agriculture, horticulture, forestry and fishing are, contrary to urban mythology, all hi-tech, science-based industries. Disciplines like soil science, animal husbandry, pasture science, marine biology, food production and processing science are all knowledge-rich, innovative and positive contributors to our national wealth.

Our food production ability and potential has never been more economically significant for New Zealand than it is today. Countries in our economic zone like India - population 1100 million, growing by 22 million every year, and China - 1400 million and growing are the dynamic economic power houses of this century and we are on the ground floor, ready to grow with them.

Because these industries are so important to us, it's important that we get them right - that we keep investing in innovation and research, and that we make sure they are sustainable industries and we extract high value from them.

I want to extend my heartfelt thanks to my wife, Carole, who has stood with me through 27 tumultuous years, and to my family and extended family, who know how much time, energy and cost all this has taken and caused.

My extraordinary long serving electorate staff, who started this journey with me in 1983 and are still with me - Jeanette Lawrence, Liz Maunsell, Shona Richards, Marty Braithwaite and dozens of volunteers who help 1500 constituents every year.

My parliamentary staff, who have worked tirelessly and well beyond what could reasonably have been expected - Sally Griffin, David Cuthbert, John Pagani and Tony Simpson, you have all been valued colleagues.

To Parliamentary staff, the Speakers and the Clerk's Offices, VIP drivers, and messengers, my thanks for years of unfailing courtesy and assistance. And my former NewLabour, Alliance and Progressive Party colleagues who are present in parliament today: My grateful thanks for your invaluable contribution throughout what has been a remarkable journey: Sandra Lee, Matt Robson, John Wright, Grant Gillon - not to mention Reg Boorman, my former Labour colleague, whom I once had to persuade not to engage in fisticuffs with Richard Prebble at a particularly robust meeting of the Labour Party caucus in the Rogernomics era.

Also my Labour Party colleagues, particularly Phil Goff and Annette King. We have been on a long journey together but, at the end, are now on the same side again. We have KiwiBank and Air NZ to remind us that publicly owned assets can be run successfully in the interests of all New Zealanders.

And as far as KiwiBank is concerned, I will always remember Annette's contribution at a final Cabinet Policy Committee meeting after months of exhaustive advocacy by me of the NZ Post's business case for the Bank - having to knock down every objection one by one. Annette turned to Michael Cullen and said these immortal words: "Michael, he's beaten back every argument against the bank we've ever put up - for God's sake give him the bloody bank! And in equally immortal words, Michael Cullen replied: "Oh, all right then"!

And finally, I want to mention two areas that have been central concerns for me, where I hope that work will continue into the future:

Suicide prevention, and prevention of drug and alcohol abuse. These areas are sometimes sidelined because they are complex and hard to solve. Progress is frustrating.
And yet they are indicators of a community that, to the extent that it does not address the needs of some of our most vulnerable citizens nor has the will to make necessary changes, fails in its responsibility to care for all of our citizens.

To those critics who constantly belittle and cynically demean political participation and representation in parliament, I can do no better than quote the words of former United States President, Teddy Roosevelt, who said, in a speech on 'citizenship':

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who knows at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall not be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

My next task now is to do what I can to help my adopted, beleaguered and loved city of Christchurch to recover from the disaster by which it has been struck.

It's been a privilege to serve in this House, and I want to end by again thanking my constituents for the once in a lifetime opportunity to do so.

ENDS

Jim's E-News September

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-09-09T15:05:07+12:00

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

John Key is a fact free zone on alcohol pricing

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-08-29T16:28:00+12:00

John Key is rewriting history as he tries to explain why the government won't act on New Zealand's heavy drinking culture, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.

Talking about minimum pricing for alcohol on TVNZ's breakfast programme this morning, John Key said:

John Key: Now do you remember some years ago Jim Anderton passed a law that put the price of Sherry up.

Corin Dann: The Sherry drinkers yeah.

John Key: It did a couple of things. It put the fortified wine manufacturers in my electorate out of business, and it stopped grandma having a Sherry, so she moved off to a low price Vodka. It didn't actually change her consumption of alcohol. So yes I mean if you could get a price that was a high selling point for all alcohol, maybe, but all you're likely to do is raise excise across the board.

Jim Anderton says John Key is rewriting the history of a highly successful tax that removed a lethal product from the shelves.

"I introduced a Bill that increased the price of so-called light spirits - those that had 23 per cent proof alcohol.

"It was targeted at wiping out the light spirits industry, because they were selling high octane drinks to kids. They were 25 per cent proof of alcohol drinks of vodka, gin, whisky, and brandy.

“These so-called light spirits were lethal and the bill was a success. Sales of light spirits were reduced by 85 per cent and they went off the market. That was the whole point of the bill, and John Key speaks as if it was a bad thing.

"The cost of alcohol-related harm to New Zealand is indicated by reputable economists and analysts to be in the order of $2 billion to $3 billion a year.

"Mr Key is now trying to argue that the problem is mostly binge-drinking and mostly the young. But that is not true. 700,000 New Zealanders drink heavily. Sixty per cent of all police arrests involve alcohol.

"And one measure that has made a difference in recent times - using price to remove a literally lethal product aimed at young binge drinkers - was a complete success,” Jim Anderton said.

Enough is enough - liquor outlet community protest

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-08-20T13:06:50+12:00

Jim Anderton’s speech at liquor outlet community protest

Another liquor store is the last thing we need. Public drinking is a serious problem for this area. It’s got worse since the earthquakes closed the inner city. Just two weeks ago, four students were arrested, cars were vandalised and police were pelted with bottles in Riccarton.

How much of this behaviour do we have to take before we say it’s too much? It’s too hard for communities to oppose liquor outlets when we feel there are already too many in our neighbourhoods.

More places selling alcohol, a lower drinking age, and longer opening hours - it all adds up. It adds up to more alcohol abuse. It adds up to more harm to communities.

Communities are in a good position to judge for themselves whether there are too many places in an area to buy liquor.

Residents are good at gauging for themselves whether there are enough places.

But the law doesn’t give local communities enough say. The result is that it is too hard for a community to respond to increasing alcohol abuse.

You don't have to be a wowser to say the rules are too heavily weighted in favour of alcohol. But ‘wowser’ and ‘zealot’ and the labels that the alcohol industry puts on anyone who expresses concern about the harm caused by alcohol - Sensible people like Doug Selman, from the National Addiction Centre at the University of Otago, and Ross Bell, from the New Zealand Drug Foundation.

Liquor lobbyists like the Hospitality Association say drinkers should take personal responsibility for their own actions. That sounds reasonable. But it is the opposite, and it’s just as cynical as the arguments the tobacco industry used to use.

Those who are addicted to alcohol or affected by it are generally the least well equipped to deal with it responsibly. 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 children alone, or would they put some responsibility on the dealers.

The same goes for the alcohol industry.

We have a serious alcohol problem in New Zealand.

Sixty per cent of criminal offences are committed when the offender is under the influence of alcohol. There are 1350 violent physical assaults which take place in New Zealand homes each week fuelled by alcohol abuse.

If we want less crime and safer streets, we need to make alcohol less available.

This community is taking action. Everyone here today is taking personal responsible for making this community safer. We deserve to be listened to. We are entitled to say enough is enough.

We don’t need more drinking nor more places to drink.

What we need are safer streets and more respect for the wishes of this community to control the number of liquor outlets in our neighbourhood.

Sir Paul Reeves

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-08-16T14:59:41+12:00

Jim Anderton’s statement to parliament on the passing of Sir Paul Reeves

I join with the House in expressing our sadness at the passing of Paul Reeves and in expressing condolences to his family.

As our Governor General he helped to bring New Zealand into a new era, because he was so obviously different to those before him.

He was the first Maori to hold the position, and the first to come to the job from outside the customary establishment diplomatic and legal circles.

And more than that he had a highly developed sense of social awareness, and he was not afraid to express his thoughts.

He was our first Governor General to have grown up after the 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 the cause of social and economic justice. He came from a modest family background and never allowed himself to forget that.

He knew from simply growing up and looking around that economic adversity and social exclusion can wound deeply, and that we owe it to everyone born into our communities to give them 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.

He spoke out against division - between rich and poor, and against racial divisiveness.

He was not 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.

I'm sure too that often his words would have irritated politicians, and yet he spoke always with such charm and good humour that they couldn't possibly take public issue with him, even if he was subtly but effectively chiding them.

He was always able to make his point effectively and to cause those he was addressing to pause and take stock without giving offence.

But above all he wore his talents lightly because Paul Reeves had that one thing above all else which marks out those who serve us best - his modesty.

Truly with his passing a mighty totara has fallen.

Playcentre Rally

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-08-07T14:13:38+12:00

Jim Anderton’s speech at Playcentre Rally

Sydenham Park, Picnic and Play-In
Sunday 7 August @ 2pm

(Protest walk starting at Sydenham Park, Colombo St, at 1pm)

I’m here today in support of Playcentres in my own electorate of Wigram and throughout New Zealand, and to strongly oppose the ECE taskforce’s recommendation to cut funds to this terrific service and other important childhood education sectors such as home-based ECE and Kohanga Reo.

Playcentres are unique in the early childhood sector. They differ from kindies and early childcare centres because 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 hub: a virtual extended family, offering help, guidance, mentoring and support when mums and dads need it most. And because Playcentres involve parents in the running of their centres across New Zealand, it can offer affordable childcare.

Playcentres are the heart of Kiwi communities. In some rural areas, the Playcentre is the only childcare available to families.

But the government’s ECE task force recommendation for funding cuts threaten the very survival of Playcentres across the country because they don’t fit into its current thinking.

On Wednesday the Minister of Education was adamant the government would not move on its decision over proposed cuts to Playcentre until the consultation period is over.

By Thursday, less than 24 hours later, Minister Tolley had abandoned her rigid stance and was stating to the media that there was no risk to Playcentre funding.

This form of brinkmanship seems to be turning into a National Party pastime.

Did the Minister smell the coffee?

Or did someone remind her there is an election this year?

If you can change your mind that quickly, however, you can certainly change it back again!

But this change of mind tells us one important thing.

By making a strong stand and not putting up with nonsense, you are getting somewhere at last. So keep making some noise because it is not over yet!

But let’s hope the Minister does, in the end, do the right thing.

160,000 children and their families face huge cost increases which they can ill-afford if the other funding proposals from the ECE Taskforce go ahead

The ECE taskforce has recognised the importance of early childhood programmes that involve parents and actually deem them more effective. It even states that effective parent support is one of the best ways that government can ensure good outcomes for children – so why recommend cuts to this vital sector? The report is seriously misguided.

It deems Playcentre’s a successful model on the one hand but won’t support them when and where it counts.

If the threat of 70% funding cuts is carried out, it is likely that Playcentre’s will be unable to survive. We cannot allow that to happen without a fight. I know your networks throughout the country and how organized you are. So – the government is on notice here.

The government is playing fast and loose with too many important services that help families in New Zealand - services that are the fabric of our communities and our lives.

I’m standing with you today for equal funding for all childhood services. Each and every early childcare centre across the country is doing a vital job. The vital job of giving our children the best start in life.

This National-led government, despite recognising the valuable contribution and excellent results of early childhood education, seems hell bent on savaging this sector.

Drastic cuts could lead to closures of Playcentres across the country which in turn will lead to a large number of people losing their paid employment as they will have no affordable childcare provision.

Families are already struggling to survive. Let’s not let their situation get any worse.

Congratulations on what you have achieved so far and best wishes as you continue to work for the benefit of all families and communities in New Zealand.

Norway attacks

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-08-02T15:05:55+12:00

Jim Anderton’s speech to Parliament on the Notice of Motion - Norway attacks

“That this Parliament extends its profound condolences to the King and Queen, government and people of Norway in the wake of the bomb attack in Oslo and the massacre on Utoya, and expresses its support at this time of shock, grief and loss, as well as its hope that the tradition of open, peaceful democratic participation for which Norway is so well known, will be its strength as it proceeds from here.”

I join with colleagues in this House in expressing profound sympathies to the people of Norway.

How moving and poignant this tragedy has been for those of us who have spent our lives encouraging young people to believe politics can make a difference for the better.

To believe in the politics of hope.

Because among the many tragedies and outrages of the killings towers a brutal truth: That they died because of politics.

They died because of hatred.

They were at a summer camp conceived to nurture a new generation of progressive young people.

And they were targeted because they symbolised the future.

The attacker was deranged.

Atrocities are always the work of a perverted mind.

Therefore the atrocity is not a reflection on mainstream political ideas. Right wing extremism is not the same as conservatism, and it is unhelpful to confuse the two, and offensive to conflate the respective threats.

But there are vital lessons for mainstream politics nevertheless:
• That we should challenge hate speech and the politics of hate whenever we see it.
• Those who set out to divide one group of people from another are always wrong.

When hatred and racial divisiveness is seen as deeply abnormal, then the obsessions and ravings of extremists will stand out more obviously.

The more abnormal their hatred becomes, the more it is obvious that we need to intervene.

And just because the attacker’s ideas were twisted, we should not say his actions were isolated.

It is too complacent to dismiss him as a madman.

We don’t make that claim about jihadist terror.

It is offensive that the murderer in Oslo used Christianity as a justification for his crimes.

And we should use our feelings of offence to understand how offensive it is to Muslims when extremist haters in Al Qaeda use their religion as a perverted justification for hate crimes, too.

In both cases, a toxic mix of political and religious hatred results in people using a perverted interpretation of their religion as a justification to commit unspeakable crimes.

It is wrong to believe that this hatred is conceived in a vacuum, that it’s just one person gone crazy.

Atrocities are brewed in a sewer of hatred.

Many commentators have noticed the rise of an especially ugly form of racial divisiveness across Europe.

It objects to the presence in Europe of large Muslim communities.

Those promulgating these views cannot expect to promote an ideology of hatred, call it Christianity, and then pretend to be surprised when that ideology descends into criminality and mass murder.

We have been fortunate in New Zealand to be spared the worst excesses of racial hate politics, and the return of neo-Nazis.

But we are not immune from it, and we need always to be vigilant.

We should not be cowed from discussing sensitive issues just because they touch racial boundaries.

We all have a responsibility to make sure we err on the side of love, not hate; on the side of welcoming, not dividing; and on the side of peace, not violence.

The ideas of love, tolerance and peacefulness have always been the underlying values of progressive politics (with a small ‘p’).

Those are exactly the values the mass murderer hated, and tried to destroy.

That’s why Labour parties, progressive parties, and social democrats around the world feel a part of us was attacked on that summer’s day in Oslo.

But we know this too:

No haters can ever succeed, because they cannot kill ideas.

They cannot kill our values.

They cannot kill our humanity.

All of us are shocked by the horrifying violence in Norway.

On behalf of the people of Wigram, and members of the Progressive party, we stand with the people of Norway in our sympathy, and in sending our deepest condolences.

Sea-change needed for NZ fishing industry

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-08-04T17:05:45+12:00

A change in the way we fish will reap dividends for the fishing industry and boost the ‘New Zealand brand’ if we can reverse current practices and industry thinking says Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton.

Speaking at the petition presentation from The Service and Food Workers Union at today’s Primary Production Select Committee, Jim Anderton supported the SFWU’s endeavours to up skill Kiwi workers by addressing outmoded practices that have dumbed down New Zealand’s fishing industry.

As a former Fisheries minister, Anderton is 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 scaled back on 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 day-old 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”, says Jim Anderton.

Jim's E-News, August 2011

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-08-01T21:41:11+12:00

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.

Dunne's support for winter power rebate welcomed

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-07-26T17:26:05+12:00

Support for a winter power rebate from UnitedFuture MP Peter Dunne is being welcomed by Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton.

"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," Jim Anderton said.

"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."

According to Statistics New Zealand, there are about 1.4 million households. If half were eligible for a $200 winter power rebate, that would cost $140 million. $200 is the estimated winter power bill for a month for the lowest income half of households.

UnitedFuture MP Peter Dunne is calling for a similar policy - a top-up of $50 a month for superannuitants for the three coldest months of the year when their power bills reach $150.

"Mr Dunne is right to identify the seriousness of winter power needs, and the simplicity of doing something about it through a winter rebate," Jim Anderton says.

"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."

Launch of NZ By Design book

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-07-22T10:52:55+12:00

Launch of NZ By Design book - speech by Jim Anderton

Thursday, 21 July

Legend has it that our great Nobel-prize winning scientist Lord Rutherford was once asked what made New Zealanders such industrious and curious innovators. He replied: We don’t have much money, so we have to think!

Michael Smythe has produced a book that tells us about the process of thinking in New Zealand.

Like Lord Rutherford, Michael Smythe is right that the driving force of New Zealand innovation is our distance and isolation. We don’t have large amounts of money to throw at problems.

I was once introduced to a Japanese entrepreneur who had made a large investment in IT in Christchurch - he bought a business with over two hundred research staff. It didn’t produce a single product for sale. Its entire production was research for his company’s needs in California and Japan.

So I asked him why he came to Christchurch for that investment, and he told me he had a particular research problem that had been troubling his company for years. They had thrown the best IT equipment and brains not to mention money they could find at the problem, and it was taking them years to solve.

Then he brought the problem to Christchurch and found someone who solved it by hooking up a few old PCs and got the research finished in weeks. When he asked why, how his New Zealand researchers had done what no-one else had been able to do, he was told: “We’re not used to having the money to hire huge numbers of people, so we took a fresh look at identifying the problem and how it could be solved with the resources at his disposal”.

New Zealand’s isolation gives us the drive to innovate, to solve problems using our wits. That’s how the Hamilton Jet was developed, and countless other kiwi problems solved. It is not the ‘Number 8 wire’ approach. It’s the application of intellectual grunt. But our isolation also gives us something else - it gives us a precious advantage: the freedom to try things out.

New Zealanders expect to have a go at things, and risk failure. And risking failure is a critical element of innovation. We can have a go, and we can even fail and get back up because we are small and we can, where in many countries, failure is career ending, and so decision-makers are risk averse.

This was how our much-loved myth of Kiwi ingenuity was born. But unfortunately, the so-called Number 8 wire economy has its limits, too.

When I set up a Ministry of Economic Development a bit over ten years ago, 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.

For most of our economic history, our economy relied on the sun shining, the rain falling and the grass growing. But other countries can grow grass too.

The advantage we have that they can never match is 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: That’s how you make products that earn us more tomorrow than we earned yesterday.

Back about five years ago I used to give speeches pointing out that five years before then, at the opening of the twentieth century, no one had ever heard of an iPod. And of course, just five years before today, no one had ever heard of an iPhone.

This week Apple announced they sold twenty million of them … in the last three months. Two years ago, none of us had heard of an iPad.

In the last twelve weeks Apple sold nine million at an average of nearly a thousand dollars each - $9000 million worth!

Each of those products is an example of brilliant innovation from a design-led company that demonstrates, in a spectacular way, that design and creativity have awesome potential.

There are many engineering innovations, but what is special about these products - and others - is that they weren’t waiting around to be discovered. Other people had already come up with mobile phones, and MP3 players. What they might never have come up with was the unique implementation. It was design that made the products different and successful.

This is important when we think about design in New Zealand.

It means there is not some form of ‘New Zealand design’ sitting around to be discovered. Instead, there is a way of looking at things that can only come from New Zealand. And if we want New Zealand to be successful, we have to harness that New Zealand uniqueness. We have to encourage more businesses to embrace a unique way of looking at things.

A few years ago I set up a New Zealand Design Group to work out how to better use design to improve New Zealand’s exporting. It discovered there is far more New Zealand potential in our industry than most people imagined. But the hard question to ask was why more of it wasn’t developed to create New Zealand products.

They found we don’t use our natural advantages very well - advantages they identified included international respect for our education system. Another is our cultural diversity - especially the unique quality Maori and Pacific Island influence.

Experts said that because we have mainly small firms, many see design services as ‘too costly’ or an add-on to their core business. Even among the bigger firms, there is a general lack of understanding of the value of design in the way leading export firms like Fisher and Paykel or Formway have understood.

Fisher & Paykel had a huge commercial hit with their dish drawer, which was created because the design team regarded nothing as given in the design process. They came up with a drawer that washed dishes, and developed a product that was sold all over the world.

That’s a pretty good example of what we need more of. But we have legitimate questions to ask about what is the best way to unleash this potential.

I strongly believe the best - in fact the only way - to get industry to take the necessary risks in a small country like New Zealand is for government to partner with industry.

That’s the only way we will align the elements of our education system, export agencies, industry training and everything else we need to get right.

It’s why the then-government created a research and development tax credit and set up NZ Trade & Enterprise to work with industry in promoting design.

The current government has a different perspective on this issue - its view is that the government should stand back and the market will create the necessary innovation all on its own, which is why one of the first things they did in government was to axe the R&D tax credit.

I don’t want to involve you in a political debate about the merits of these different approaches. But I do want to ask you to engage closely with it.

I get frustrated by hearing people say ‘politicians don’t get it’ when it comes to the need to lift the value of our exports and create more design-led products. The truth is that there is a divide in politics between those of us who see a hands-on role for the government in unlocking our development potential on one side; and those who believe in hands off on the other side.

I urge you to contribute to that discussion - and to have a strong view about what the government can do to help, and make your view known.

My own priorities are in several areas.

I think we need to incentivise R&D. We just don’t do enough in the private sector. Our government research and development is about average by world standards, and we commercialise more of our R&D than most countries.

What we don’t do is spend enough time on R&D in our private businesses. That is both a result and a cause of not putting enough emphasis on design in business processes. As one wag said, too much of our industry is structured around one set of Aucklanders selling haircuts to the people who they pay to mow their lawns.

So we need to promote awareness of the difference design can make.

When people see how success is achieved, they are inspired to emulate that success. If we think of our fashion industry, the success of labels like World and Karen Walker have helped inspire another generation of small businesses built on design and creativity.

A book like Michael Smythe’s will help inspire people and make them aware, too, so I welcome it. It can help us to see how design made a difference to creating the New Zealand we have today.

We tend to think that the way things are today is an inevitable result of history. Those decisions in our past are like water trickling downhill to reach an inevitable stream. But most of history is not inevitable - it is the result of decisions, and because you and I are all decision-makers, we can all influence tomorrow’s history.

We should not accept limitations on what New Zealand can achieve. We need to be fiercely determined to be better than any other country. We need to be prepared to accept failure on the way, and not punish those who try but fail. That is the environment where design can thrive and make a difference to our businesses.

It is an environment that is achievable in New Zealand, but it is not always what we do. Unleashing and exporting more of our creativity is immensely important to New Zealand. It is the only way we will transform our industrial base.

Smart investment in design can produce an enormous return in jobs, and higher incomes.

So I welcome this book’s contribution to that future, and I welcome the change it will help to promote in our attitudes to design and the difference it makes.

I wish this book, and its author, the success they deserve.

Youth suicide will rise over the next few years

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-07-21T17:55:12+12:00

Youth suicide rates will rise over the next two to four years, as a result of shockingly high youth unemployment rates, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton is warning.

“High suicide rates follow high levels of youth unemployment, sure as night follows day.

“Youth unemployment today is near record levels and among the highest in the developed world.

“High rates of youth unemployment inevitably lead to high rates of suicide.

“In the nineties, four peak years of youth unemployment were followed by the highest youth suicide rates in the Western world.

“We are about to see a repeat. Our suicide rates are already at high levels, with over five hundred deaths a year. At the current level of youth unemployment, suicide will increase again in coming years.”

He says the NZ Institute's snakes and ladders report shows 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 has tragic consequences," Jim Anderton says

Levy on soft drinks would help to reduce diabetes epidemic

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-06-27T17:17:26+12:00

A levy on sugary drinks would help to reduce our diabetes epidemic, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.

New research shows New Zealand has some of the highest rates of diabetes in the world - and the problem is fast getting worse.

Last week Jim Anderton called for a levy on sugary drinks to help pay for bringing dental care into our free public health system.

“A levy would not just help to pay for dental care, it would help to reduce our diabetes epidemic too," Jim Anderton said.

"Without a levy everyone has to pay more tax to the health system to help pay for diabetes treatment. A levy on sugary soft drinks would reduce the problem of diabetes - a little prevention is a better alternative than a lot of costly treatment after the damage has been done."

A study published in the Lancet medical journal found the number of people worldwide with diabetes has doubled since 1980, with about 30 per cent of the increase caused by an increase in obesity.

Among high-income countries, New Zealand has the fourth-highest rate of diabetes.

“We have a diabetes problem. We have an oral health problem. And we could have a levy on sugary drinks as a simple answer to help reduce both problems."

Jim's E-News, June 2011

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-06-27T11:10:44+12:00

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.

Higher premiums and another AMI bailout

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-06-01T16:09:23+12:00

Insurance premiums will rise for farmers and businesses and taxpayers could end up on the hook for another AMI bailout when ACC workplace coverage is privatised, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.

"An independent report by PriceWaterhouseCoopers in Sydney in 2008 showed that ACC costs in New Zealand, at around 0.8% of wages are substantially lower than the Australian average of 2% of wages.

"ACC costs for farmers are much lower in New Zealand than in Australia.

"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 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 never warned of a problem. Why would workplace insurance be any different?”

A Progressive dental health policy for all New Zealanders

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-06-22T10:57:37+12:00

Today Progressive leader Jim Anderton launched a policy to promote free dental health care for all New Zealanders.

THE FACTS

44% of all New Zealanders do not receive any form of dental care. Obesity and diabetes are increasing and both are linked to an increase in dental health problems.
The number of New Zealanders over 65 years of age who still have some or all their natural teeth is rapidly increasing. Dental problems amongst this group are complex and costly. Because 70% of those over 65 years of age only have NZ Superannuation as their main or only source of income, regular dental care is simply unaffordable.
While free dental care is theoretically available in New Zealand from birth to 18 years of age, in practice only 50% of young NZers receive treatment because of availability of services, cost or understanding how to access them.
A very worrying statistic is the 2,668 children (and rising) under 5 years of age who require dental procedures at our public hospitals each year, including the removal of teeth under general anaesthetic.
District Health Boards provide access to dental health services for children up to year 8 (age 13) of their schooling through the school dental service – a combination of school mobile clinics followed by dental services for adolescents from age 13 up to the 18th birthday with services at agreed fee levels. (A service introduced by Hon Annette King). The goal is to achieve and maintain an 85% access rate compared to around 50% at present.

Available data on dental disease suggest that:

Māori and Pacific children are less likely to be cavity-free by 5 years of age.
Māori and Pacific children experience more dental cavities by 5 years of age
Water fluoridation has a significant and positive preventative effect on dental decay.
In general, drinks containing high amounts of sugar (including fruit juices, milk shakes and fizzy drinks) are not only associated with an increased risk of cavities, but also with weight and obesity problems.
To a large extent, dental problems result from what we eat and drink. There are three major problems:- dental cavities, gum disease and gum erosion. Our diet encourages the development of tooth decay. Sugar and refined carbohydrates which we consume are the key culprits in this regard.
People who are overweight tend to have worse dental problems. The 2009 Social Report found that 1.13 million New Zealanders were overweight. Greater consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks is associated with weight gains and obesity and is a serious risk factor for dental decay.
According to Diabetes NZ, about 270,000 New Zealanders suffer from Type 2 diabetes, whilst another 90,000 cases go undiagnosed. The incidence is increasing rapidly and around 500 young NZers aged between 10-18 years also have Type 2 diabetes.
From 2011 to 2030 the baby-boom generation will retire and because most of them have kept their natural teeth, even though heavily restored, many will get serious decay from tooth crowns and exposed tooth roots. Clearly this means that many elderly NZers will need expensive dental treatment, in many cases well beyond what they had to spend on dental care in their younger years and well beyond their ability to pay.

THE PLAN
This policy proposal advocates free dental care should be extended over time, and on an incremental basis, to all New Zealanders. First to the most vulnerable groups; pregnant women, those aged 65 years and over followed by those aged between 18 and 28, then those 28 years to 50, followed by those between 50 and 65 years old.

These steps should be supported by education, publicity and the fluoridation of all drinking water (following, and if supported, by a parliamentary select committee enquiry).

There should also be a bonding scheme for dentists and dental hygienists who are prepared to work in rural/provincial areas where dental professionals are in short supply in return for writing off student debt over a 3-5 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/cafeterias provide only healthy food.

SUMMARY
Considering the three trends: Obesity – Diabetes - and Dental Deterioration – it seems clear that there will be an increasing need for dental care, especially for people on low incomes, including a growing number of elderly citizens.

Put simply, bad teeth are likely to compromise the overall health of large numbers of New Zealanders and add significant cost to an already stretched public health system.

Prevention should therefore be the thrust of good dental health policy, and ensuring that all people have access to high quality, affordable dental care will have a powerful preventative effect.

Prevention should be aided by four new policies:

Providing Free Dental Services so that dental decay can be arrested and other health problems which may arise from a lack of dental care can be avoided and general health costs reduced.
Bonding of Dentists working in Provincial and Rural areas
A Parliamentary Inquiry into the need (or otherwise) for Fluoridation as part of a National Dental Health Strategy

Current fluoridation policy in NZ is that local authorities decide whether or not drinking water should be fluoridated. Children using fluoridated water have a lower rate of tooth decay (over 30% less) than those whose water is not fluoridated (All Australian States have fluoridated water supply under a Federal Dental Health Policy Framework. 80% of Australians have access to fluoridated water compared to 60% of New Zealanders. As late as March 2008, the Queensland State Parliament overwhelmingly passed legislation allowing for the completion of fluoridation supplies for the whole state, which currently only has 54% fluoridation compared to:
92% in New South Wales
78% in Victoria
90% in South Australia
92% in Western Australia
83% in Tasmania
70% in Northern Territory
100% Australian Capital Territory

Publicity - In order to make free dental care as effective as possible, the government should fund advertising across all media to show the importance of regular dental

care. Doctors, Plunkett rooms and schools should be provided with educational material to encourage proper dental hygiene.
THE COST OF A UNIVERSAL FREE DENTAL CARE SYSTEM
The current cost of free dental care to those under 18 is approximately $120 million per year. The estimated cost of introducing free dental care to those over 18 years of age (based on 2002-2003 data) would be an additional $542 million bringing the total cost of universal dental care to an estimated $670 million.

However, allowing for inflation, the cost of more expensive equipment and more people accessing dental services, we should allow for a cost of around $1 billion.

FINANCING THE PROPOSED POLICY
Accepting that the cost of extending free dental care to all could be around $1 billion a year at current prices, the required funding could come from a levy on income, similar to ACC levies, a reduction in the $17.8 billion tax cuts given to the most affluent New Zealanders by the National-led government over 4 years (average $4.4 billion per year), a levy on sugary soft drinks (such as we have on tobacco or alcohol) because of their contribution to the forthcoming diabetes epidemic, or a mix of all these possible sources of funds.

The extension of the Volunteer Bonding Scheme (VBS) to dentist and dental hygienists will also require funds. In the absence of details about shortages of such professional services in rural areas and provincial centres with serious shortages that cannot, at this time, be costed.

However, the current Voluntary Bonding Scheme costing around $7.5 million p.a for over 500 doctors, midwives and nurses, indicates that such a scheme for improved dental services, should be able to be accommodated within the $800-$1000 million estimated to obtain a free dental service.

This plan could be implemented over a period of between 5-10 years so that the funding, administration and resources required could be accommodated more efficiently.

The current Dental Agreement will continue to apply, but will also be amended to cover the incremental extension to other groups. There will need to be an agreed fee structure.

The introduction of State Funding should make private insurance cover redundant. This should be reflected in a reduction in premiums charged by insurers for general health insurance if this includes cover for dental care – a saving for existing policy holders.

Dentists will remain in charge of their own practices and professional procedures. They will not become Government employees.

Negotiations with the dental profession will be conducted to agree on an administrative system which would be required, over time, to introduce the free dental system.

Because of my retirement from politics this year, I am handing this policy programme to the NZ Labour Party as the vehicle through which I hope these issues, concerns and initiatives can be progressed.

Jim Anderton Speech On Maori Suicide Prevention

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-06-23T10:30:17+12:00

Jim Anderton Speech to Kia Piki Te Ora National Hui,
Otaramarae Rd, Rotorua

Tēnā Koutou Kiatoa No Mai – Haere Mai

You have spent a few days here talking about Maori suicide prevention. You’ve heard from treatment professionals and from experts from here and overseas. And I know you are motivated by the pain and trauma of loss, and by a determination to do something to change the future.
There is a story I heard a few years ago that had its origins in a 1990s best-seller called Chicken Soup for the Soul. It’s been modified a bit by people who have added their own experience - but it is a story many of us know touches on the difference individuals can make.
It starts out with a real event in a young man’s life which had a profound effect on him. His name was Robert. One day when he was in his first year at high school, he saw a boy from his class walking home from school. The boy’s name was Kyle.
It looked like he was carrying all his school books. And Robert thought to himself, ‘Why would anyone take all his books home on a Friday? He must be a real boring swat.’
As he was walking, he saw a bunch of kids hassling Kyle. They knocked all his books out of his arms and tripped him up so he landed in the dirt. His glasses went flying, and he saw them land in the grass about ten feet from him. Kyle looked up and he had this terrible sadness in his eyes.
Robert really felt for him. So he jogged over, as Kyle crawled around looking for his glasses. He could see that Kyle was trying not to cry. Robert picked up his glasses and as he handed them to Kyle, he said ‘Those guys are jerks. They really should get a life.’ Kyle looked at him and said ‘Hey, thanks.’ Robert helped him pick up his books, and it turned out the two lived quite near each other.
Kyle said he had gone to a private school before now. Robert had never hung out with a private school kid before. So they ended up spending a bit of time together over the weekend, kicking a football around, talking and finding they had a lot in common.
Monday morning came, and there was Kyle with the huge stack of books again. Robert stopped him and said ‘Boy, you are gonna really build some serious muscles with this pile of books everyday!” Kyle just smiled.
They were both going to university at the end of high school. Kyle was going to be a doctor. He was top of his class and very popular with the girls!
Kyle became head prefect in his final year and was asked to prepare a speech for the graduation ceremony. Robert was there, looking up at him from the crowd - at how he’d filled out and how popular he was. Robert was even a little jealous of Kyle’s success. Kyle cleared his throat and started his speech: “Graduation is a time to thank those who helped you make it through those tough years. Your parents, your teachers, your siblings, maybe a sports coach...but mostly your friends.
“I am here to tell you all that being a friend to someone is the best gift you can give them. I am going to tell you a story…”. Robert, sitting in the audience looked at Kyle with disbelief as he told the story of the first day they had met. Kyle said he had become deeply depressed. He had planned to kill himself over the weekend. He talked of how he had cleaned out his locker so his Mum wouldn't have to do it after his death, and was carrying all his books home. He looked straight at Robert and said, “Thanks for being there, Robert. You made a difference”.

Five hundred lives a year - nearly ten a week - end in New Zealand through suicide. Many more than we have in road accidents. Many of us know the trauma and the sense of loss.
We can simply talk about the issue, or we can do something about it.

We don’t know everything about how to prevent suicide, but we know enough to make a difference. For example - and it’s just one example from many I could give - when we look at the facts they tell us the risk of suicide is increased twenty-fold for those suffering from depression.

And the facts tell us that most New Zealanders know depression is relatively common. Most can name at least one symptom. And ninety-nine percent say they're willing to be supportive of someone with depression.

But while we say we’re willing to pitch in and lend a hand, most people with depression don’t look for help because of the stigma they feel this illness carries. We can do something about that. And we can make a difference as a result.

When I was Minister responsible for suicide prevention policies, we ran the hugely successful John Kirwan ads on TV that encouraged people who were depressed to seek help. We launched a website – www.thelowdown.co.nz.
It’s a place on the net where kids can go and find out about how to get help. It uses role models young New Zealanders can identify with. These are examples of how we are able to be there, to extend that helping hand to people.

What we found was that they were effective among a particular group.
The John Kirwan ads have been more effective at reaching adult men; the lowdown website with teens.

So 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. We have to be tough about the fact we’ll get criticised for it too.

I was criticised commonly enough by people who should know better for paying for the John Kirwan ads - even though we could prove they saved lives.

I have been in a call centre when the John Kirwan ad has been screened on television. The switchboards light up as people realise there is something they can do - there is a place they can go to, to get help.

Men, in particular, would ring in response to that ad - and men in New Zealand are traditionally very reticent about expressing their feelings and asking for help.

The more people get treatment for depression, the more suicide rates will come down.
So these sorts of initiatives make a difference. They extend a hand when it’s needed, like the young man in the story I started with.

It was only a few years ago that I used to criticise the way the health system failed to respond to high risk or actual suicide attempts.

When someone made a suicide attempt, their stomach would be pumped out or their wounds patched up and they were sent home. But the bit that was broken wasn’t even treated at all. Families in crisis didn’t know where to go for help.

On my watch we invested more than $23 million to support suicide prevention initiatives.
To put that in perspective, when I took on responsibility for suicide prevention, we had a total national prevention operations budget of $28,000. Before I left office, I launched a suicide strategy and an action plan for the period 2008 to 2012.

In 2009 a review of the first year of the action plan’s implementation found most of the items in the plan were underway, and the review provided some accountability for ongoing progress.

But there was more to do.

I notice that those progress reports have not been updated since 2009: In other words, it’s not possible to find out the status of progress on the strategy.

And if it’s not possible to get those facts, it is impossible to hold anyone accountable for implementing the strategy.

I haven’t seen much evidence that the ministerial committee on suicide meets more than a couple of times a year, and when it does, that it does not do much more than read a few reports.

Other than recommendations on the reporting of suicide, the Ministry of Health hasn’t published anything about suicide except ministerial minutes since 2009 - whereas for the previous decade it was busy producing major reports, statistics and action plans at regular intervals.

The government in which I was a Minister funded research into suicide prevention as part of the suicide strategy we put together, and those programmes have updated our knowledge base.
It’s important to keep the momentum up.

There is, however, some progress. The suicide rate has come down by about 25% since its peak in the late nineties.

But this conference is about Maori suicide because the Maori suicide rate is highest for any group. The causes are always complex.

I often make the point that the suicide toll is about the same as the road toll, but there is not a safety belt you can wear that reduces suicides. You can’t just slow down cars and get results.

I know that researchers have identified that one big risk factor for Maori suicides is that there are higher numbers for those who are not connected to their Maori heritage and Maoritanga. The other major factors are poor general health, use of drugs, including alcohol, and, especially cannabis – as well as being the victim of abuse.

These are all issues we need to make more progress on for Maori as a whole.

The poor health status of Maori in New Zealand, compared to the health status of the rest of the population is indefensible and unacceptable. We need to recognize the consequences that flow from that and be prepared to try new treatment models.

We can’t deny, either, the link to incomes and employment.

Likewise with drugs - I hear a lot of argument that people believe their civil liberties are harmed by criminalising drug abuse. But the facts are clear that cannabis use is associated with suicide – particularly Māori suicide - and that causes much more serious harm than law enforcement causes.

We need to take substance abuse seriously. Cannabis use is associated with higher suicide rates; so too is being a victim of abuse.

I didn’t hear that mentioned much by the people who marched in the street to protest at parliament removing the legal defence for hitting kids.

Parliament made that decision - nearly every party agreed - because of our high rates of child abuse.

Targeting child abuse is one factor among many in targeting suicide.

Now the government is talking about throwing more people off benefits like the DPB - that will make it harder still for mothers to remove themselves and their kids from dangerous, violent and abusive homes.

And that means that even if the abuser doesn’t kill – and most don’t - some victims will end up taking their own lives.

These are examples of how we have to think about a lot of issues if we want to make a difference to our unacceptable suicide rates.

A caring country must respond when we see a problem we need to resolve.

Every suicide is a tragedy, and I acknowledge the distress and hurt of those who lose their loved ones in this way. We can make a difference if we are strong enough to create a society where New Zealanders feel valued and nurtured – and care for each other.

We can make a difference if we are strong enough to create a New Zealand that values lives, and where New Zealanders are supported in the rough seas and strengthened in the calm.

I want to close by thanking you for your work in this area.

It is only by exploring ideas and caring about solutions that we will ever find ways to help.

I started with a story about a young man who was amazed to find he was the one who had made a difference.

All of us have it within us to be that one. And in your efforts to help others, I wish you all the best.

How about special recognition for heroes?

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-06-27T10:24:50+12:00

Column for Older and Bolder
July 2011

One of the genuine bonuses of being a Member of Parliament is that anything can turn up as an issue, a problem or a suggestion. Not everyone would see that as a positive thing but I do, and it certainly makes life interesting and gets me involved in matters which I wouldn’t otherwise encounter.

One that particularly intrigued me recently was a suggestion which has been made to the Prime Minister that there should be some mark of recognition granted to those in the emergency services and beyond who have made a contribution to Christchurch in recovering from the earthquakes. The proposal goes on to point out that there is provision for the issue of medals to recognise such a contribution within the present honours system

I received a copy of the letter sent to John Key with the suggestion, and I must say I endorse this idea. That’s not to say that it should happen immediately; events in Christchurch are still, unfortunately, unfolding, but so are the stories surrounding the actions over and above the call of duty which have characterised these events. We need to find some way of commemorating the contribution which those in the emergency services in particular have made, although not necessarily confined to them alone or even solely to New Zealanders.

There is, of course, provision for that to happen now in respect of particular individuals but that requires a personal recommendation, and my correspondent has rightly pointed out that we have a tradition of modesty in this country which, rightly or wrongly, inhibits us from singling out individuals for recognition when the achievement has been a group or collective one.

There are a number of precedents for this. The two most relevant are the medal issued to those who took part in the troubled transition of East Timor to independence, and the medals issued to the one hundred and sixty-three New Zealanders who engaged in rescue and recovery work in the wake of the South East Asian tsunami in 2005. This latter group included, for example, the forty-seven police officers who assisted in identifying bodies in Thailand, and points the way to how such awards might be administered on a group basis.

At that time and in respect of the latter then Prime Minister Helen Clark said that these medals recognised “the special service of those New Zealanders who undertook often harrowing tasks in dangerous conditions.” The same words could very well be applied to the circumstances of Christchurch.

How about it, John?

Jim's E-News, May 2011

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-05-20T16:01:45+12:00

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.

A dying economy: Budget 2011

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-05-19T16:09:14+12:00

Jim Anderton’s speech to Parliament on Budget 2011.

This budget signals that the National Government has decided to preside over a dying economy.

Why? Because the most important social and economic investment in the future of any country is its investment in education.

This budget says that in the four financial years 2011/12 to 2014/15 government investment in education will increase by $197 million – that’s less than the $50 million /year - out of a budget of over $12,000 million /year – an increase of only 0.004% per year.

And provision for welfare benefits (unemployment, sickness and invalids) in the same period increases by $3153 million. Twice as much as money benefits that for Health and Education combined.

These facts would be ludicrous if they were not so tragic.

Look at the economy this government inherited.

In 2008, unemployment was the lowest in the OECD. It was 3.5 per cent of the labour force. And because there were jobs, people moved off benefits in record numbers.

In April 2008 – just three years ago - 17 per cent of children in New Zealand lived with someone who was reliant on a benefit.

Today, after three years of a National Government, unemployment is back up again at the levels last seen the last time they were in office, in the nineties.
Benefit numbers are up again because the real jobs aren’t there.

More than 32-thousand more children are reliant on benefits today than in April 2008. And because New Zealanders are not in work and earning, the books have turned to a sea of red.

In 2008, the government had a fiscal surplus of 2.7 billion dollars. In the fiscal update just before the 2008 election, the government accounts were forecast to remain in surplus for the forecast period. The Crown was contributing to the Superannuation Fund and had no net debt at all.

Today, the government announces a fiscal deficit of $17 billion dollars. But look where that deficit has come from: The income tax cuts on 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. The government is borrowing two and a half billion dollars a year just for tax cuts for the top ten per cent of income earners alone.

This Government likes to blame its books on the previous government. I’m sick of hearing it because it is not true. Their problem is they can’t take personal responsibility. They have to find someone or something to blame because they can’t fix the problems.

So they blame the global crisis.

They blame the earthquakes.
Those events made things worse – that’s true.

But bad management made the economy worse still.

They were going to catch Australia.

Bill English and John Key were going to close the wage gap with Australia – Yeah Right!.

Australia went through the global financial crisis too. Australia has been hit by devastating natural disasters too - like floods and the unprecedented hurricane in Queensland.

But here’s what the Australian Treasurer had to say about his budget, delivered last week: “Our economy has been hit in the short term by the recent natural disasters which have devastated families and communities.
…But growth is strengthening … Unemployment is low and is set to fall even further.

We've seen over 700,000 jobs created since we came to Government and we expect to see a further half a million jobs added by mid-2013.

Our public finances are in relatively good nick. We'll be back in the black in 2012/13.

So much for New Zealand catching Australia!

And all this Government has to say about why they’ve weathered the storm and we haven’t is that Australia has mining.

That ignores the fact that we have been enjoying the best commodity prices ever. We’ve had the most favourable terms of trade in history.

No, the problem is that National had no ideas to fix the economy – and still hasn’t got any!

John Key came into office promising tax cuts that everyone would share in, and promising that those tax cuts would help us catch Australia.

His government has failed on every one of its own targets. Most New Zealanders didn’t get a net tax cut - they got a small cut that was cancelled out by the rise in GST, and the subsequent price rises that soared ahead of their incomes.

Imagine if the National Party had produced an election manifesto that said:
“We will increase GST.
“We will cut Working for Families.
“We will cut your KiwiSaver, not once but twice.
“We will cut student loans.
“And we will give tax cuts costing $44 million a week to the top ten per cent of earners.”

They would not have dared set out that plan before voters. But that is how they have governed.

They got elected on promises they couldn’t keep.

Governments in the 80s and 90s did that and got thrown out but John Key wasn’t in NZ then, he was overseas working in the money speculation business.

National didn’t trust New Zealanders enough before the election to tell the truth - that tax cuts meant spending cuts and deficits. And today they don’t trust New Zealanders enough to tell the truth about the cause of their deficits today.

The sort of government that is too weak to front up to the truth is a government that is too weak to make the changes New Zealand needs.

There is a predictable outcome to this failure: People suffer. And the more vulnerable they are, the less resilient they are, and the more they suffer.

Children are being admitted to hospital for diseases that are clearly linked to poverty - there were an extra six hospital admissions for infectious diseases and respiratory diseases every day in 2009, compared with two years before, and the figures are worse now.

When families don’t have adequate incomes, and jobs, their children live in poor housing conditions, they lack nourishment, they are not warm enough.

Their health suffers.

Their opportunities suffer even more.

How much harder is it for children in the thousands more poor homes this government has created, than for a child in one of the affluent and privileged homes they have heavily favoured?

This government should be ashamed of itself.

In 2008, the main breadwinner was unemployed in about 7 per cent of Maori and Pacific families.

Today, that figure has doubled - fourteen per cent of Maori and Pacific families don’t have someone going to work and bringing home a wage or salary.

That is the Maori Party’s legacy for supporting National.

What does that means in practice?

Half of kids whose families are living in severe hardship have not got suitable wet weather gear because of the cost. A third of them don’t have a pair of shoes in good condition. They miss out on the experience of growing up, like owning a bike or a personal computer.

Two thirds miss out on school outings, or involvement in sports, half miss out on school books or a visit to the doctor because of the cost.

All of these are things that virtually every kid whose parents have a decent income takes for granted.
The National Government has one single programme to fix the issue: Selling our power companies.

That won’t lift one child out of poverty.
It won’t create one job.

Not one of those families in poverty will be queuing up at the stock brokers to buy shares in the companies.

And when those companies are snapped up by overseas buyers, the prices we pay will rise. The profits will disappear overseas. The tax on profits will be dodged.

And if the National Party is back in office, it will come back to the table and ask again for more because its policies have failed.

There’s nothing new here.

This is a return to the failed policies of the nineties.

The policies that fail people.

Fail to create jobs, fail to lift incomes.

Fail to create a stronger future for New Zealand.

Petrol price margins at record high

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-05-16T14:41:23+12:00

Petrol companies are making record margins on fuel prices, a government survey of petrol price margins shows, and Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says the fuel companies are too slow to reduce prices.

“Petrol prices are always fast to increase and slow to fall. At the moment, the price is high because the government has taken its eye off the ball and the petrol companies know they won’t face any pressure for soaking the New Zealand consumer,” Jim Anderton said.

“I call on petrol companies to drop retail prices now. The 3 cents a litre some companies dropped this morning is a fraction of the increased margin they are making.”

The Ministry of Economic Development’s oil price margin monitoring shows petrol companies were making a margin of 29 cents a litre last week – nearly double the average margin last year.

“Excessive fuel prices are not just bad for consumers, they’re bad for business too. The cause of high petrol prices right now is greed,” Jim Anderton said
.
Source: MED [pdf]

Half of NZers don’t have access to affordable dental care

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-05-11T16:41:34+12:00

Nearly half of all New Zealanders did not receive any dental care in the last year, partly, at least, because of the cost.

Progressive leader Jim Anderton says the current economic conditions are making dental care even less affordable for New Zealanders.

“Dental health is the ‘poor relation’ part of our health system. It goes under the radar screen but the human and health costs are mounting.”

Jim Anderton is planning to launch 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.

In Parliament today he asked the Government if it was satisfied that New Zealanders have adequate access to affordable dental health care.

“The Government says it is 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 can only access emergency services such as pain relief and teeth extractions. The 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 next month.

“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.”

Leadership matters more than structure in Chch rebuild

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-04-12T17:52:49+12:00

The people to lead Canterbury’s rebuilding matter more than the structure, Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.

He is supporting the government’s CERA legislation because Canterbury needs quality consultation and quick decisions.

“For some reason there is a view that public participation is in conflict with rapid decision-making. In fact they are both essential to each other. You cannot rebuild quickly if you don’t take all the people along with you, because people who are left out will challenge the process, they will feel disillusionment and ultimately the process will fail.”

Jim Anderton says the challenge for Christchurch is to shift our perspective from ‘recovering what we once were’ to ‘building what we seek to become.’

“This ability to re-imagine Christchurch requires leadership - leadership capable of engaging with all the city’s people. The success of what we have to do will depend on that leadership much more than the structure we have. I am not as concerned with the structure and design of the CERA as I am with having the right people to lead it.

“We need leaders who have the confidence of people and are able to communicate with them and get things done. The ability to engage the community and get things moving was the big disappointment after the first quake. It simply didn’t happen well enough, and not enough was done soon enough.

“So I understand why the Government has taken control, and I don’t blame them. It’s a recognition that a lot of taxpayer money is at stake, and also that things need to be handled better than they were after the first quake.

“What we need to see now, in this legislation, is a commitment to listening and making the community part of the rebuilding.

“People need to feel their views are taken into account and that the kind of Christchurch they want is being created. Because otherwise, if they feel it’s not the Christchurch they were born into, or came to, or want to experience again, they will feel no commitment to it,” Jim Anderton says.

CERA debate

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-04-12T17:50:43+12:00

Jim Anderton’s speech in Parliament on the second reading of the CERA Bill.

Mr Speaker

There are two things Canterbury people need:
- They need to get on with things as quickly as possible.
- And they need to be involved in decisions about the recovery.

For some reason there is a view that public participation is in conflict with rapid decision-making. In fact they are both essential to each other.

You cannot rebuild quickly if you don’t take all the people along with you, because people who are left out will challenge the process, they will feel disillusionment and ultimately the process will fail.

And there is no point consulting if you don’t get processes and decisions moving because people will simply leave, or they will stay away, or they will try to push on on their own, when what we need is to coordinate efforts.

So I support this CERA Bill because it enables the immense amount of work Christchurch faces to be done, and it offers the opportunity for genuine consultation.

Offering an opportunity for consultation is not the same, of course, as taking the opportunity.

So I want to warn that it is critical that CERA consults, and that the process is open, transparent and accountable.

And that’s why I will be supporting amendments to the Bill at the committee stage.

I recently read an article by Steven Ames that summarises the challenge for Christchurch:
We have to shift our perspective from ‘recovering what we once were’ to ‘building what we seek to become.’

He outlines the phases in the road back from disaster:
- Rescue in the hours after the emergency,
- Recovery as we reconnect water and power and the like.
- And then rebuilding - the stage we are now entering.
- But a comparison of cities that have rebuilt brilliantly and cities that have struggled shows the need for a fourth stage.
Ames describes it as ‘revisioning’.

The ultimate success of rebuilding depends on how much the city is able to understand how its context has changed.
…How much it understands where it maybe headed, what emerging trends and issues lie ahead.
…And - most importantly - what it might aspire to be.

I want to read into the record his conclusion:
“City leaders would be remiss only to think of what must be rebuilt or replaced to bring the city back to where it was on the eve of the quake.

“Human nature suggests that when disaster strikes we hunker down, convinced we cannot afford the luxury of thinking beyond our most urgent needs.

“But this moment also represents a singular opportunity for Christchurch and all Canterbury to rethink revision and reinvent itself.”

This ability to re-imagine Christchurch requires leadership - leadership capable of engaging with all the city’s people.

The success of what we have to do will depend on that leadership much more than the structure we have.

I am not as concerned with the structure and design of the CERA as I am with having the right people.

We need people leading the rebuild who understand the stages of recovery I quoted.

We need people with experience managing large enterprises, who understand Christchurch, its ethos and culture.

We need leaders who have the confidence of people and are able to communicate with them and get things done.

The ability to engage the community and get things moving was the big disappointment after the first quake.

It simply didn’t happen well enough, and not enough was done soon enough.

Contrast what has happened up in Kaiapoi.

They got cracking early, talking to people, and they held community meetings where people could put up their ideas.

That was reflected back to the community, a strategic plan was drawn up and signed off, and they are going ahead rapidly.

Christchurch is nowhere near that position.

Dealing with the problems is not easy - that’s true, but it hasn’t been as fast as it needs to be, and it hasn’t - to date - adequately involved people, and that needs to change.

So I understand why the Government has taken control, and I don’t blame them.

It’s a recognition that a lot of taxpayer money is at stake, and also that things need to be handled better than they were after the first quake.

What we need to see now, in this legislation, is a commitment to listening and making the community part of the rebuilding.

People need to feel their views are taken into account and the kind of Chjristchurch they want is being created.

Because otherwise, if they feel it’s not the Christchurch they came to, or want to experience again, they will feel no commitment to it.

I recognise the government has not abused its sweeping and extraordinary powers under the first Christchurch emergency legislation.

This gives hope that it will continue to use its powers with good faith in the future.

But it has to do more than that. It has to reach out to a shocked and fragile community and engage with them.

That is how we will move from recovery to rebuilding for a new vision of what Christchurch can be.

Foreign owners have no commitment to NZ

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-04-07T15:23:39+12:00

The closure of NZPA is the result of a corporate bean counter’s decision made in Australia, and serves as a warning about what happens when our assets are owned overseas, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.

“If John Key sells our other assets, the same calamity will result. Foreign owners have no commitment to New Zealand.”

Jim Anderton says the loss of NZPA will hit regional New Zealand hardest because regional newspapers rely on the service for their national news service.

“Fairfax appointed an Australian chief executive to run the operation in New Zealand in March last year over the top of New Zealand executives who were expected to run the company. The cynical Australians who run half of New Zealand’s papers are putting in place a strategy that is bad for New Zealand, and only good for an Australian company.

“NZPA provided a unique service. It is one of the only gallery offices at parliament that routinely covers select committees and debates in the Chamber.

“It is a service that New Zealand’s news services outside the main centres rely on. Even the Christchurch’s press gallery office has been closed. This will remove services from remaining regional centres of New Zealand. NZPA also has a reputation forged over decades for writing straight news reports - leaving opinion and beat up scandals to others.

“This is what happens when our services end up overseas owned. Just as the Australians closed bank branches when they bought up our banking industry, and overseas owned oil companies spent years closing petrol stations in regional New Zealand, the newspaper company has a similar lack of commitment

“Exactly the same outcome is predictable if John Key goes ahead with his plan to sell down our power companies. Foreign owners will buy them up over time, and services will begin to disappear. I would love to hear the advocates of foreign ownership tell us why closing NZPA is a great advertisement for overseas ownership.”

AMI bail-out

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-04-07T15:21:32+12:00

AMI bail-out: Government should sometimes get involved in profitable businesses too

The necessity for a government bail-out of AMI is a slap in the face for people who say government should have no role in the economy, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.

“Just as with South Canterbury Finance, Air NZ, Kiwirail and Kiwibank - sometimes the government has no responsible choice but to get involved in the economy.

“The difference between me and the National party is that National only gets involved in catastrophes, while I think that if we are going to be there in the bad times, taxpayers should share in some of the good times too.” Jim Anderton said.

Help pay for Chch with $462m from top 5%

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-04-07T11:57:39+12:00

The country will be $462 million deeper in the red this year because of the cut in the top personal tax rate for those on incomes of over $100,000 a year, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.

He says the cut in the tax rate for the top 5% is worth at least $4.6 billion over ten years, which could be used to help meet the cost of rebuilding Christchurch and give young jobless Cantabrians trade skills to rebuild the city.

“The Government says the deficit is very big this year. It could reduce that deficit by reversing some of the tax cut they gave on 1 October, at least temporarily. Earners on incomes of over $100,000 would still get the benefit of tax cuts on income below $100,000 - the same tax cuts everyone else gets. The highest income earners in New Zealand would still get at least $500 million in tax cuts.

“But the country desperately needs the money now. The large deficit means the unaffordable 1 October 2010 top tax rate cut needs to be reversed. Surely NZ’s highest income earners would not object to that course of action”.

A calculation table is available on Treasury’s website here.

It shows income of around $9.3 billion is earned by those with incomes over $100,000. Using Treasury’s methodology, the difference in government revenue is calculated by multiplying that figure by 0.06 (i.e., 6 cents in the dollar, from 33 cent tax rate to 39 cent), and then applying a deflator of 17.3% (because, for example, some of the income won’t be spent and attract GST).

This gives a total cost - and therefore an increase in the fiscal deficit - of $462 million this year.

Jim's E-News, April 2011

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-04-05T09:57:00+12:00

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.

Government, not quake, caused greatest deficit in history

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-03-28T13:45:44+13:00

Claims that the ‘biggest budget deficit in history’ are all a result of the Canterbury earthquake are untrue and designed to conceal the devastating effects of last year’s bad economic decisions, says Christchurch MP Jim Anderton.

John Key told TVNZ today that the May 19 budget will include the biggest deficit in history, mainly because of the cost of the rebuild and recovery in Christchurch. “We need to pay for the earthquake, it’ll get booked to the account straight away," he claimed.

But Jim Anderton says the Prime Minister's claims are untrue.

“The National Government is myth-making. Even Treasury said in its update that two thirds of the deficit was happening before the second earthquake hit. The recession was caused by the National Government, not by the earthquake.

“The earthquake is expensive, but the economy was already deeply in the red when the earthquake hit.

“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.

"Nor is there a reason to take much of the entire cost of the earthquake in a single year. No one expects the rebuild to be completed in a year. The Government hasn’t even got temporary accommodation underway from the first earthquake, when Japan is already building hundreds of temporary homes within weeks of its quake. For John Key to then claim that this inaction is causing great expense is simply untrue,” Jim Anderton said.

How to win an election

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-03-10T17:20:44+13:00

Jim Anderton said today that the whole package of reforms outlined in the Law Commission's report on reforming our alcohol legislation ‘Curbing the Harm'’ is needed to make a difference to New Zealand's heavy and binge drinking culture.

“Members of Parliament have a golden opportunity to make a difference here and shape a different future for alcohol on a path that would look like that of tobacco.

“In my 27 years as a Member of Parliament, this is the time to stand up and acknowledge that we need a united front in the House to deal with New Zealand's heavy drinking culture - and all the problems that flow from it

“Since the purchase age was lowered in 1999, there are now worse outcomes for our young people where alcohol is involved, but putting up the age of purchase is only one of the changes that need to be made - in a comprehensive way,” Jim Anderton said today.

“We need to tighten up the rules for liquor advertising, sponsorship and promotion.

“The current bill does not address the Law Commission's recommendations to develop a blueprint for addiction service delivery. Alcohol addiction must be a crucial part of any overall plan that deals with the nation's heavy-drinking culture. It affects 700,000 New Zealanders, that's the combined population of Wellington and Christchurch and is the cause of one third of all police arrests.

“We can do something about the needless number of drunk-driving deaths by legislating for lower blood-alcohol limits. New Zealand's blood alcohol level is in the highest group in the world. We must also implement minimum price limits.

“Alcohol is a legalised drug and it is sold with much hype, glamour and fanfare. If politicians want to make themselves relevant with New Zealand's communities, who live with the realities of alcohol abuse, our MPs could take up the slogan from DB Export ads, How to Lose an Election and give it a little twist. Instead of losing the election, they could well win one,” Jim Anderton said.

Earthquake News Update

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-03-01T08:21:46+13:00

The earthquakes which have struck Christchurch have caused widespread devastation.

My sympathies go out to all who have been affected, particularly those who have lost loved ones, been injured or sustained loss in any way.

I hope you and your family are coping without too much stress or loss at this difficult time.

In a time of crisis, we all rely on family, friends and neighbours. Please lend a hand to the elderly or sick in your community and to those most in need, as it may be sometime before normality resumes.

My office has been damaged but the phones and email are working and staff are available (working from home – with phone calls transferred) to assist. In some cases a message will need to be left, but we will deal with calls as fast as we can.

My best wishes and warmest regards to you all.

- Jim Anderton

Jim's E-News, February 2011

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-02-18T15:29:08+13:00

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 Zealand

Superannuation (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.

Stop the link between sports and alcohol

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-02-10T15:00:37+13:00

Speaking today at the ‘Sport and Alcohol: Finding the Balance’ conference at Massey University, Progressive Leader Jim Anderton, has called for an end to alcohol sponsorship in sport claiming the beer industry’s goal to normalise the association between sports and alcohol is the wrong message.

Citing examples of the methods used by the alcohol industry to link sport and alcohol together from sponsorship at junior club level to corporate hospitality and sponsoring our national sports stars, Anderton pointed out that even the youngest players are in no doubt that beer is ‘joined at the hip’ with the game they play.

“By effectively targeting the game at Saturday club level, through all grades, the beer industry is making customers for life. The beer marketers know that young boys want to emulate their heroes such as the All Blacks, which is why their brand and logos are all over the background of All Black television and public appearances.

“By its association with sporting brilliance, the alcohol industry’s strategy is to sell more beer. As long as the brewers have an association with New Zealand’s iconic sports culture, there is no way of changing New Zealand’s heavy drinking culture,” Jim Anderton said.

“I don’t want to pull the rug from sports teams and know full well by advocating a change to alcohol sponsorship in sport I will get labeled a ‘wowser’, but things need to change.

“Banning sponsorship will require a commitment from government to cover a transition period. We did it with smoking. Remember the Rothman’s tobacco company’s New Zealand cricket sponsorship? It is now sponsored by the National Bank. This example shows that changes can be made.

“A thousand people die from alcohol related problems every year – three people every day. Alcohol harm totals billions of dollars a year, which we all end up paying for in taxation. New Zealand has a culture which has normalised the abuse of alcohol. Many factors contribute to this which we cannot change, like our history, but some we can, such as the contribution made by alcohol’s association with sport”, says Jim Anderton.

Anderton victory over DB Export ad

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-02-11T16:00:04+13:00

Progressive Party leader and MP for Wigram Jim Anderton has scored a victory in his formal complaint against a beer advertising campaign that misrepresented historical facts.

The complaint against DB Breweries Export Beer campaign ‘How to lose an Election', was upheld in relation to the television, cinema and website advertisements. It wrongly used actual footage taken from the 1951 Waterfront Lock-Out riots to portray significant civil unrest, in response to Nordmeyer’s 1958 Budget, none of which actually happened.

“The Advertising Standards Authority complaints board has ruled against the television, cinema and website advertisements as well as arguments put forward by the advertiser and requested that the advertisements in their present form be withdrawn.

“It is true that there was a negative public reaction to the budget that increased beer and tobacco prices, but there were no riots and to imply there were is misleading, deceptive and does not reflect our history with any accuracy”, said Jim Anderton.

In its deliberation, the Complaints Board reviewed and upheld Jim Anderton’s complaint that ‘the presentation of the footage in the television, cinema and website advertisements from the 1951 waterfront dispute and lockout was both wrong and misleading’.

The board further judged the footage in the advertisements ‘demonstrably false’ and 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’.

It was agreed 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’.

“The beer brewing company is effectively warning politicians not to regulate beer. The liquor industry seems to be making barbed threats with these advertisements, which through its own admission, were planned during the same period when the Law Commission was looking at reforming liquor legislation and receiving public submissions on tighter controls over its advertising”, says Jim Anderton.

Sport and Alcohol

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-02-10T15:02:22+13:00

Jim Anderton’s speech at the Sport and Alcohol: Finding the Balance conference

If you want to understand the pervasive effect of alcohol in sport, then you could think about a story told to me last year by a mum of a six year old boy who was playing his first year of junior rugby.
One Saturday morning they travelled to an away game. There they found sponsors had equipped the ground - nothing unusual about that.
But this ground was decked out more colourfully than usual. More flags, more bunting.
The sideline flags, all along the field, around an entire park full of small boys playing Saturday morning football, was decked out in adverts for Tui beer. There were Tui ads on the goalposts, and on the bunting around the ground.
Now what would a beer company get out of displaying its messages to six year olds? I’m sure the company would say it was simply providing a service to local clubs.
But if that was all there was to it then they wouldn’t need to splash their logo all over the ground. They’re not trying to sell beer to six year olds - children don’t have much money.
The beer company’s game is more subtle than that. Their goal is to normalise the association between sports and alcohol, so that as those little boys grow up they will understand beer and rugby go together like bread and butter.
Every single day alcohol companies spend two hundred thousand dollars on marketing and advertising. Around half of that goes into sports sponsorship.
A small amount of that money goes to by flags and markers along the sidelines at junior rugby grounds.
Much more of that hundred thousand dollars a day goes into advertising.
It goes into product placement and so-called hospitality so that sports stars are seen in front of beer brand logos. It’s all part of a strategy that promotes heavy alcohol consumption by associating it with healthy and exciting activity.
That would not be a problem if the sponsor was selling insurance, or cars or the other products that associate with sport.
But alcohol is different. Alcohol is associated with harm. And not just any harm.
Alcohol is by far the most damaging drug in the country.
Let me put in perspective how damaging and harmful alcohol can be:
Fewer than ten people died last year as a result of using the drug commonly known as ‘P’. 1000 people die from alcohol related problems every year. A thousand people a year, or three people every day.
When I was Minister in charge of drug policy the Ministry of Health presented us with a study on the economic impacts of harm caused by different drugs.
Alcohol harm totalled billions of dollars a year: Between $1500 million and $2400 million each year.
Confronted with the facts about the damage alcohol causes, we can do one of two things: We could ignore the evidence of harm; or we can try to reduce that harm.
But we should be clear that those are the only two options. There is little more cynical than hand-wringing about the harm caused by alcohol from people who have no intention of changing it.
I accept that people have different views - that there are plenty of political figures who say ‘the abuse of alcohol is your own responsibility, and no the business of anyone else.’
That is a valid point of view for someone to take - valid but not one I agree with, because anyone who says that must be clear about the consequences - that they are saying we should ignore the harm no matter how serious, and even though we know thousands of young people a year will be hurt, many irrevocably, because of alcohol.
Too many people skate over the imbalance in the way the harm impacts different people.
Middle class, middle aged people who enjoy a casual often ask why the rules shouldn’t be set for their needs. But they are the ones who have options, and skills and support.
There are seven hundred thousand people in New Zealand who are estimated to drink excessively or harmfully. And they tend to be the vulnerable ones, who don’t have lots of options, and all the skills to make good decisions.
But nor does reducing harm mean banning alcohol, or returning to prohibition. It means promoting a range of solutions that are capable of working.
Few of the options for reducing harm will work on their own.
You can increase the minimum legal age for buying alcohol from 18 to twenty. That would at least reduce some of the increase in harm to teenagers since the minimum purchasing age was increased a decade or so ago.
For example, the number of road deaths declined by about a hundred from 1999 to 2007 - but the number of deaths among 15-29 year olds didn’t come down in the same proportion. But it had been coming down before the minimum purchasing age was reduced.
Officials told me that there would be about twenty fewer deaths a year if the accident rate among young people fell as much as it fell among the rest of the population.
So changing the age you can by alcohol would help to reduce some harm. You could reduce availability in corner shops. That would remove some of the worst examples of abuse.
What do we expect to happen when kids can walk into corner shops and by a large can of ready-mixed alco-pops?
I would like to see the price of alcohol increased because nothing promotes moderation like price signals.
All of these would have some effect. But if you really want to reduce the harm caused by alcohol then what you would do is change New Zealand’s drinking culture.
And we have a heavy drinking culture. We have a culture that normalises the abuse of alcohol.
Many factors contribute to that culture - including some that can’t be changed, like our history. But some can be changed: like the contribution that is made by alcohol’s association with sport.
Consider just about any All Blacks game, or any Black Caps game.
Most young Kiwi boys watch those games, and they grow up dreaming of being just like the stars they see on TV. They go out and try to hit the cricket ball like Jesse Ryder. They try to dress in the same shirt as Danny Vettori and they stand by the stumps and mimic Brendon McCullum’s encouragement of his team mates.
So what do they do when they see those games dripping in beer sponsorship? They learn that saturation in beer is part of the game.
Most young Kiwi boys watch the All Blacks on TV. They try to run like Mils Mulliana, tackle like Ritchie McCaw and pass like Jimmy Cowan. They go outside and act like the stars of the game.
Beer marketers like Steinlager know that. That is why they sponsor the All Blacks.
And having saturated the game in beer, administrators, and media and talkback callers behave as if they’re surprised when Jesse Ryder, Tana Umaga or Jimmy Cowan gets into trouble for drinking too much.
They talk about how those players are role models. But I don’t blame those players for making mistakes.
I blame the culture that associates alcohol with their sporting brilliance as a way of making money out of selling more beer.
As long as brewers are spending a hundred thousand dollars a day associating alcohol with sport, we will have no chance of changing the heavy drinking culture.
Every advertisement seen by a young person aged 15-24 increases the number of drinks they consume by 1 per cent. They become customers for life.
So I would like to see the alcohol sponsorship of sports games banned.
The beer companies are taking a harmful product and associating it with healthy activity. It’s the wrong message.
But you couldn’t pull the rug from sports teams. Those sports grounds for junior rugby still need someone to step in and help pay for the sideline flags. So banning sponsorship would require a commitment from government to cover a transition in sponsorship.
We did it with smoking. Remember Rothmans cricket series? It is now sponsored by the National Bank. This example shows that changes can be made. Twenty years ago sport was saturated with tobacco promotion.
My research uncovered 32 significant sports sponsorships in 1991 - they included pretty much all the major sports codes, including cricket, racing, ruby, tennis, motor racing, soccer, cycling and more.
Now I might be wrong about this - but I think cricket, rugby, tennis, soccer and cycling are still going in New Zealand without the support of Rothmans or Benson and Hedges.
Alcohol sponsorship could be replaced as well.
But I am not confident there is the political will to do it. Politicians who talk about the harm caused by alcohol get labelled ‘wowsers’. We get called fun police, by the kind of people who believe you can’t have fun without alcohol.
And the other political factor is pervasive political influence of alcohol.
Beer companies send every MP a box of beer at Christmas. They even sent me one. You can imagine how generous they are with people more likely to do their bidding. They use their massive marketing budget dishonestly.
I’ve currently got a complaint in front of the advertising standards about a TV campaign currently underway.
It shows pictures of riots that were caused when the government in 1958 increased the price of beer.
Now I remember 1958. I was there. And there weren’t any riots or any public demonstrations of any kind.
The beer company used the footage of the riots in the 1951 waterfront lockout and lied about them - falsely claiming they were riots against beer tax increases.
Their real message is not directed to consumers - it is directed to politicians: At a time when the Law Commission is considering alcohol law, they are running a campaign called ‘How to Lose an Election.’
It is an unsubtle warning - increase beer tax, and we will spend tens of millions of dollars to attack you.
My complaint about that is before the Advertising Standards Board. Soon there will be a judgment on it. Either that dishonest campaign will continue or it will be stopped.
It shows that alcohol companies can’t be trusted. Their sponsorship of sport is not altruism. Either. They will ignore the harm and consequences and they will attacked savagely anyone who gets in their way.
There is an old political saying - never pick an argument with someone who buys ink by the barrel. Alcohol companies by advertising space by the barrel.
They use it deceitfully. They market regardless of the harm.
So it’s up to the rest of us to consider the harm. We can ignore it - or we can do something about it. We need to change the culture.
And one starting point for that would be to kick alcohol out of sport.

Asset Sales: Debate on the PM's Statement

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-02-08T18:48:24+13:00

Mr Speaker,
The headline on the front page of the Christchurch Press on Saturday reads: “Does this look like the road to recovery?”
The obvious answer – 5 months after the earthquake is a resounding NO. In my electorate office area of Selwyn Village, Spreydon – every single business on the opposite side of the road has left their premises – nothing has changed or been done since Sept. 4 and the only answer we get to our urgent enquiries is that the Council is talking to the owner! Every single business in our village is now at risk – almost no parking, cordons everywhere and no action.

FAST FORWARD to NEW ZEALAND’S Economic Recovery and how do John Key’s words about an ‘aspirational government’ and heroic television appearances pledging progress and prosperity match up with the same kind of rhetoric we saw night after night on television at the time of the earthquake.
Again – the obvious answer is “about the same”.
Lots of hype – not enough action.
Here are the problems that the Prime Minister should have talked about this afternoon:
After more than two years of his government, economic growth has stopped.
Any so-called recovery has stalled.
Unemployment is going UP, not DOWN.
Jobs are being lost, not created.
The cost of living is increasing, but incomes aren’t. Keeping pace – particularly for low-middle income New Zealanders.
What is the prime minister’s strategy to tackle those problems?
He doesn’t have one.
He has had all summer, and he comes down to this House with a plan to muddle through - a shopping list that won’t create jobs, won’t lift incomes, and won’t help.
His economic policy consists of assets 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.
John Key wasn’t in New Zealand for most of the eighties and nineties.
But I was here, and I heard all the arguments for asset sales last time around.
The arguments for assets sales were fatally flawed then, and they are fatally flawed now.
I walked out of the then government caucus because assets sales were a bad idea, and the idea hasn’t got any better.
And that’s why we had to buy assets back.
We had to buy back the rail system because National privatised and allowed it to be wrecked.
We had to buy back Air NZ because the private owners bankrupted it.
We had to start a new bank because the foreign owners of our entire banking industry sucked New Zealand dry: They closed 1300 branches, they increased fees and their own profits, shipped from overseas at the rate of $1306 million a year and we had to do something about it.
Why would selling our power companies be any different?
Why would the new foreign owners suddenly discover the virtue of charity over shareholder profit?
Why would the assets not fall into foreign ownership, just like the last lot that were going to be kept for ‘kiwi mums and dads?’
I am here to bear witness that the same mistakes are being proposed as were made last time a government paid for tax cuts by selling off public assets.
The same tired old lines from the past are being trotted out, and the same promises that it will be different this time.
The only thing that has restrained the rapaciousness of the power companies in the last ten years has been the threat of the government changing the composition of their boards.
When the power companies are sold and the boards are free to do what they want, even, worse, what they have to do by law - look after the interests of their minority shareholders, what will protect householders who have to keep paying higher costs for essential electricity.
The National Party says selling assets will pay down 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 what happened?
After selling nineteen billion dollars’ worth of assets - we had more debt as a country than when we started. Selling the family silver.
Selling assets increases debt, it doesn’t reduce debt.
There is something outrageous about giving tax cuts that cost $43 million a week for just the top ten per cent of earners - and then claiming we have a debt problem because we are borrowing too much.
What we will end up with is more profits going overseas.
And that will mean our overseas debt will get worse.
Every time we turn on a light, the overseas owners will harvest a profit.
Every time a business starts a machine, the overseas owners will get a cheque from us.
A river in New Zealand, dammed by New Zealand for generations, supplies power along a transmission network built and maintained by New Zealanders, to a household in New Zealand. And somehow, someone in another country will clip the ticket on that transaction.
That is what privatisation means.
Mr Key says the assets will be kept in New Zealand hands.
But that is what they said about Contact Energy, the Bank of NZ, Postbank, Air NZ, NZ Rail and practically every other strategic asset which was privatised.
Who owns them now? Not the Kiwi Mums and Dads. The majority interests (apart from those the last Labour-led government bought back) are mainly held in Australia.
Who owns the New Zealand forests that National sold in the nineties, claiming it would pay off all the debt?
If we had kept those forests, the government could today be planting them, providing thousands of jobs, earning exports and growing New Zealand.
But who did they sell them to?
The Chinese Government!
The National Party has never explained why the New Zealand government can’t run a forest, but the Communist Chinese government can – of course, in the end they couldn’t and didn’t.
They said then that transaction would pay off the debt - and now they say we have to sell more to pay off the debt.
This is National’s entire economic programme.
What else have they got in mind to grow and create jobs? Nothing.
After last year’s budget, I made a few predictions in this House about what would happen.
Let’s look at record:
I said the average New Zealander would not be better off, because if people are not on a high income, this government is not going to help.
What happened? People on average or below incomes (the majority of New Zealanders), are worse off now than they were a year ago.
I said that unemployment would be higher - what happened?
Unemployment today is higher than when National took office.
It is higher than it was last December.
And the government has stopped even pretending it has any idea where new jobs will come from – what has happened to Mr Key’s bike trail and the thousands of jobs that were supposed to come from it.
And nothing the prime minister said today will increase exports.
Nothing he said today will boost investment in research and development and help us increase productivity.
Last year I said the gap between rich and poor would increase.
That’s not rocket science - when you give a thousand dollars a week tax cut to the prime minister, but someone on the average wage ends up worse off after price rises - then the gap between the very top and everyone else widens.
I said more kids would grow up in poverty.
What’s happened in McGechan Close, where John Key went in 2008 to pretend he is compassionate about children in poverty?
What has happened is that he doesn’t want to talk about it anymore.
The people of McGechan Close are worse off. Much worse off.
The young girl he took to Waitangi is now in CYFs care.
What was announced today that would make her better off? Nothing.
Here’s what a respected Professor of Epidemiology in New Zealand said last year:
“In New Zealand, social injustice is killing and maiming our children on a grand scale.”
We top the scales for OECD rates of whooping cough, rheumatic fever, pneumonia and other diseases in children.
28% of our children still live in poverty.
How many have more hope this afternoon than they had this morning?
None.
What do they have instead of more hope?
They have more unemployment.
More GST.
More price rises.
Higher rents.
And a government that doesn’t care about anyone except itself and the top 10% of income earners in New Zealand.

Lots of hype, not enough action

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-02-08T18:47:01+13:00

The lack of action on recovery for Christchurch from last September’s earthquake matches the National Government’s lack of action on economic growth, jobs and the cost of living, Wigram MP Jim Anderton told parliament today in debate over the Prime Minister’s Statement.

He warned that the National Party’s planned asset sales would not create any jobs, but would send more profits overseas.

“Does this look like the road to recovery? Five months after the earthquake every business on the opposite side of the road from my electorate office has left their premises. Nothing has changed or been done since September 4,” Jim Anderton said.

“Fast Forward to New Zealand’s economic recovery: After more than two years of his government, economic growth has stopped. Unemployment is going up, not down. Jobs are being lost not created, the cost of living is increasing but incomes aren’t.

“What is the prime minister’s strategy to tackle those problems? He doesn’t have one.”

Jim Anderton said asset sales are not an economic policy.

“It is a surrender of the sovereignty of New Zealand. Not one job will be created by selling off the people’s power companies. But every one of us will be paying higher power bills to overseas owners. And that will mean our overseas debt will get worse.

“Every time we turn on a light, the overseas owners will harvest a profit. Every time a business starts a machine, the overseas owners will get a cheque from us. A river in New Zealand, dammed by New Zealand for generations, supplies power along a transmission network built and maintained by New Zealanders, to a household in New Zealand. And somehow, someone in another country will clip the ticket on that transaction. That is what privatisation means.

“Mr Key says the assets will be kept in New Zealand hands. But that is what they said about Contact Energy. The Bank of New Zealand, Postbank, Air New Zealand, NZ Rail and practically every strategic asset which was privatised - who owns them now? Apart from those the last Labour-led Government bought back, they are mainly held in Australia,” Jim Anderton said.

Complaint over Nordmeyer advertisement to be considered by ASA

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2011-01-23T10:59:01+13:00

Progressive leader and Wigram MP Jim Anderton has received a response to his formal complaint to the advertising watchdog the Advertising Standards Authority, which has decided that an advertisement for DB Export Beer is worthy of consideration on the grounds that the advertisement on television and in the print media breaches several of its codes of conduct.

Jim Anderton’s complaint claims that the DB Export Beer advertising campaign portrays Labour Finance Minister Arnold Nordmeyer as a tight-fisted bore but distorts facts and uses misleading actual footage of the Waterfront Lock-out of 1951 to rewrite history to illustrate its point.

The subtext of the DB advertisement pushes the liquor industry line that government has no role in regulating the sale of liquor and basically supports the lack of effective action by the National-led government to implement the key recommendations of the Law Commission’s report on the problems surrounding the use and abuse of alcohol in New Zealand.

The ads will be judged on whether they have broken two advertising principals and one rule:

Basic Principal no 2) - No advertisement should impair public confidence in advertising and no 3) No advertisement should be misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive the consumer.

Rule 2) Truthful Presentation - Advertisements should not contain any statement or visual presentation or create an overall impression which directly or by implication, omission, ambiguity or exaggerated claim is misleading or deceptive, is likely to deceive or mislead the consumer, makes false and misleading representation, abuses the trust of the consumer or exploits his/her lack of experience or knowledge.

“The ASA has considered that the complaint against this advertising campaign falls within its jurisdiction and whether or not it is a breach of their code needs to be determined by them.

“This is good news as history is too often misrepresented through the careless use of information or even deliberate misinterpretation. I hope the ASA puts this matter right as not to do so would be a huge disservice to the lifetime’s work of Nordmeyer and allow our history to be cynically rewritten for the sole purpose of selling beer or other any products”, says Jim Anderton.

More background is here.

Someone Made It Up - The Fonterra Claim Is Wrong

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-12-22T14:56:21+13:00

Claims in a Wikileaks cable of a 'milk for blood' deal are totally false. There was never any discussion of Fonterra when the former government decided to send humanitarian assistance to Iraq, Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.

Jim Anderton was on the Cabinet security committee for nine years and dealt with every request for assistance that came up. He also worked closely with Fonterra throughout the time of the Iraq invasion, first as minister of economic development and then minister of agriculture.

"If Fonterra had been part of the decision-making it is unthinkable I wouldn't have heard about it. It never happened.

"The request to send humanitarian assistance to Iraq came from the UN Security Council, not from the US. It was nothing to do with the American invasion, which New Zealand strongly opposed. Unlike the invasion, the humanitarian operation was entirely UN-sanctioned and entirely humanitarian. There was never any quid pro quo."

Jim Anderton believes a junior defence official has made up the information given to the US Embassy.

"There is a lot in those cables that is wrong. It shows the quality of intelligence is unreliable - a point I always knew, because I often got better information by reading the Guardian than from formal intelligence sources.

"The claim in the Wikileaks cable could only have come from someone who had no idea what happened. It won't be corroborated because it is untrue. It is therefore disappointing that conspiracy theorists have implied there must be something to the claim on a 'where there's smoke, there's fire' basis," Jim Anderton said.

ACC privatisation will be costly for farmers and taxpayers

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-12-22T14:54:27+13:00

Farmers’ ACC levies will rise dramatically and someone will have to pick up the costs of collapsed insurance companies if National privatises the ACC work account, Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.

“The evidence from Australia is clear: There are huge costs for New Zealand farmers and taxpayers from privatisation. It costs our economy and rewards overseas insurance companies who are currently doing over Christchurch businesses.

"This is no time to reward the insurance industry for bad behaviour."

A report from the previous National-Liberal Government in Australia, comparing accident compensation in Australia and New Zealand in 2004, showed levies in Australia’s competitive market were twice as expensive as those in New Zealand for the primary sector, which is the backbone of the New Zealand economy.

“A competitive scheme could result in a levy hike of as much as 250 per cent for rural people like farmers. Our ACC administration cost is about a third of Australian schemes.”

But Jim Anderton says the hidden cost of privatisation is what happens when a private company goes under.

“It is not just a chance that private insurers could collapse - it is a certainty. And then workers will either be left with no cover or the taxpayer has to pick up the bill. If we are going to pay the bill, we ought to collect the premium.

“In Victoria – where two companies competed so seriously they ran each other out of business – they competed by under funding the tail. When claims that take a long time to emerge come through, the companies that haven’t collected enough in premiums go under. If they’ve slightly misjudged the hidden liability, they can’t suddenly raise premiums on a pay-as you-go basis because they will be competed out of business. But ACC can. That way ACC can avoid overfunding the tail. But when private companies go broke and leave liabilities for long term claims unpaid, what happens to people who suddenly don’t have anyone paying for their health care?”

A report by the Australian parliamentary library on the collapse of Australia’s second biggest insurance company, HIH, is here: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/econ/hih_insurance.htm

“If National privatises the ACC worker account, the same thing will happen here. Companies will compete by underfunding the tail. Some will collapse. Taxpayers will get the bill.

“In the meantime, high risk sectors such as farming will pay higher premiums. This is one area where we don’t want to catch up to Australia,” Jim Anderton said

“All the profits from private insurance go overseas to Aussie owned insurance companies. The revenue from ACC stays in the New Zealand economy.

“The behaviour of those overseas insurance underwriters is on display right now in Christchurch. They are putting the screws on hundreds of businesses who thought they had adequate cover for business losses.

“This is no time to reward them.”

MP who campaigned on dental care says the evidence is in

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-12-17T15:19:46+13:00

MP who campaigned on dental care says the evidence is in

Affordable dental care is the biggest gap in New Zealand’s health system, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.

“The cost of seeing the dentist is beyond the means of thousands of New Zealanders - especially those on fixed incomes. A bill of $400 or more to get a sore tooth fixed? They can’t do it,” he says.

He was responding to the 2009 New Zealand Oral Health Survey, commissioned by the Ministry of Health, which has just been released. The survey looked at the dental health of 4,906 New Zealanders.

Jim Anderton campaigned for affordable dental health care in the 2008 election.

He says the new study vindicates his concern about the seriousness of the issue.

The study shows the number of New Zealanders who can’t afford to see a dentist increased by a third between 1988 and 2009.

“Nearly half of adult New Zealanders are not receiving any form of dental care. The main reason is the cost.

“In the twenty years since the last major study, dental care for those under 14 years old has improved, but it has significantly worsened for those over 18. Cost is the main factor that explains the difference. Dental care has got cheaper for kids.

“Free dental care is currently available in New Zealand from birth to 18 years.

“We need to start bringing the rest of dental health care into the public health system, starting by making dental care free for the most vulnerable groups, pregnant women and the over-65s.

“Prevention should be the thrust of a good oral health policy. Ensuring that all people have access to dental care will have a powerful preventative effect, and this should be supported by education, publicity and the fluoridation of all drinking water (if that is supported by a parliamentary inquiry). There should also be a bonding scheme for dentists and dental hygienists who are prepared to work in rural/provincial areas where dental professionals are in short supply in return for writing off student debt.”

Government must hold review on Insurance Industry’s failure to payout Canterbury businesses

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-12-19T10:17:12+13:00

Today Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton called on the government to hold an urgent review of the insurance industry in light of ongoing failures to pay out hard-hit Canterbury business owners.

“The government must hold international insurance underwriters accountable for refusing to pay out on legitimate business disruption claims caused by the Canterbury Earthquake,” says Anderton.

“It has become apparent that scores of small businesses, who thought they were adequately covered, have been lulled into a false sense of security by their insurance company. Perfectly reasonable claims are not being met, despite assurances from brokers after the event of the earthquake.

“It seems not even the brokers understand the full extent of what these policy claims purport to do. New Zealanders have to remember that it is not the insurance companies based here that are turning down legitimate claims, but International underwriters in London, Zurich and New York who are making these judgment calls.

“In the light of the earthquake being one of the most expensive natural disasters in the world for the insurance industry, it is vital that the global insurance industry looks at its practices and explains how these policies are meant to benefit its clientele in the future.

“If ever there was a time for reviewing the ‘business disruption’ insurance claims issue, it is now, but some in the industry are relying on confusing policy language and jargon to legally avoid making payouts.

“There is an urgent obligation here. Thousands of business owners have in good faith been individually paying out tens of thousands of dollars for years to give themselves a sense of security for loss of income as a result of a disaster like an earthquake, only to find that underwriters in the insurance industry are now wriggling out of their responsibilities.

“I urge the government to urgently take up this review and make the international heads of the insurance industry focus on the Canterbury Earthquake as a case study to improve future practices,” says Jim Anderton.

Jim's E-News, December 2010

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-12-20T13:11:04+13:00

Season’s Greetings

With just a couple of weeks until Christmas, it is time to wish you all the very best for the holiday and festive season. It has been a hectic year and in many respects a tumultuous one given the Christchurch earthquakes and the Christchurch Mayoral election. In recent weeks the Pike River Mine tragedy has occupied the thoughts of a nation.

Next year will be election year and I am predicting that the Government will go to the polls early. We need to be prepared early as populist leader John Key will not want to risk leaving an election until after the Rugby World Cup on the off-chance (unlikely I hope) that the All Blacks will again falter.

While the Government’s popularity seems high at the moment, it will take just a small swing to see a change in government. Roy Morgan polls over the last year show National and its support parties tracking downwards, with the latest one showing its support at 55.5%, down from a high of 61.5% in February. Meanwhile, Labour and its support parties have slowly but steadily tracked upwards, with their support now at 44.5%, compared to 41.61% at the time of the 2008 General Election.

All that is required is a swing of slightly more than 5% from National and its support parties to Labour, and so I am urging you to make your New Year’s resolution one that you will get out and campaign for a Labour victory.

As for me, it will be the first time in more than 27 years that I will not be a candidate, and so I will be throwing my support firmly behind Labour’s Megan Woods in my current seat of Wigram.

Once again, I wish you all a safe and happy Christmas and New Year and hope that 2011 is a good and prosperous one for you and your family.

The Pike River mining tragedy
Like all New Zealanders, I watched in horror as events unfolded at the Pike River Mine in November and was deeply saddened at the loss of 29 lives. That it has been a traumatic time for New Zealand and the West Coast in particular is something of an understatement, and my sympathies go to the families and communities affected by this tragic event.

As the various inquiries get underway into the cause of this disaster, we must now take responsibility for ensuring that such a tragedy does not happen again. We must refuse to accept that the deaths are a necessary cost of mining. All of us, from mine operators to government and parliament, must take steps to ensure that the safety of all miners is paramount.

Pike River is a modern state-of-the-art mine with presumably all the latest safety technology, but that didn’t save the lives of the 29 men. The new mine is on the same coal seam as the one in Brunner, where 65 men were killed by choking gas in 1896, and this event echoed the Strongman mine explosion which killed 19 miners in 1967.

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

It will be the best possible tribute to those who died to carefully examine the most comprehensive safety means possible before we put any more miners in harm’s way. Quite simply, we must make mining conditions safer.

For that reason I support the call for former ACC Chair Ross Wilson to be appointed to the Royal Commission investigating the Pike River tragedy. As a previous NZCTU President, Ross is well-respected, capable and has championed workplace safety over many years.

His presence would assure workers and their families about the integrity of the investigation.

It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge Superintendent Gary Knowles, who led the Police effort, and Pike River Chief Executive Peter Whittall. Both men showed calm, intelligent leadership and great strength at such a difficult time. And similarly, no praise is high enough for all of those who were and still are part of the plans to recover the bodies of their mining colleagues.

The speech can be found here.

Reserve Bank statement shows unaffordability of cut in top tax rate
It’s National’s fault.

The cuts in the top tax rate from 39 cents down to 33 cents since the 2008 election are helping to put New Zealand’s recovery on hold.

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

The fiscal deficit is caused because the government reduced the top tax rate. 42% of the tax cuts since the 2008 election went to the top ten per cent of income earners. If the government had only pushed out the threshold at which the highest tax rate applies, and not cut the top tax rate from 39 cents to 33 cents, most of the fiscal deficit would not exist.

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

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

The Reserve Bank today made clear that this is all National’s fault. But will the Prime Minister accept that the buck stops with him? Don’t count on it!

Canterbury businesses face tough times
I recently addressed a meeting of small business owners in Christchurch whose businesses are still significantly affected by the Canterbury earthquakes. Now that the quakes do not fill our television screens every night and many people get back to life as normal, many businesses remain on the brink of failure and no-one seems to care.

Small business depends on cash flow and there seems little appreciation from those in authority of the effect when a business is open, but where access is blocked by rubble and cordons, and where the damaged surroundings are such an eyesore that customers head to the sanctuary of shopping malls. Many of these businesses have suffered a loss of cash flow of up to 60% and more.

The Council seems to have abdicated any leadership on the issue. Not once has the Mayor briefed me or the local Labour members of parliament about earthquake recovery plans and arrangements, and I understand that he has not even formally briefed his own councillors.

I have been working with a number of local business owners and recently arranged to have 100 tonnes of rubble cleared from the streets of Sydenham and Beckenham, for a number of cordons to be removed or reduced, and for Colombo Street to be opened again to two-way traffic.

The Government announced last week that it is making available approximately $600,000 to assist small businesses for such things as courses in managing cash-flow. As one owner at the meeting said, I have been in business for 28 years and I know all I need about cash flow. What I need is some cash to flow.

Sour grapes: Yeah Right
Political sour grapes is how Christchurch Mayor Bob Parker has described my call for heads to roll over the Council’s decision to buy at a cost of $17 million, a number of properties from the failed and now bankrupted property developer David Henderson. But it is hardly a case of sour grapes as Mr Parker well knows.

In a deal which was controversial and which I criticised at the time, the Council paid top prices for the properties from a clearly cash-strapped Henderson. The deal was one whereby Henderson had an option to buy the properties back, and so it looked like a bailout rather than a smart business arrangement.

Since the purchase in 2008, the Council (meaning ratepayers) has paid almost $600,000 annually in interest on the loans, while watching the value of the properties slump. It was utterly predictable that Henderson would not be able to buy back the properties, and that is precisely what has happened.

As a result, the Council is stuck with overpriced and, in cases, derelict properties, with ratepayers picking up the interest costs. It was barmy then, it remains barmy and the most ridiculous expenditure of public money I have ever heard of - and among the heads I believe should roll is that of the Council CEO, Tony Marryatt, who must have been responsible for the advice to purchase under such unacceptable conditions.

Ironically, Mr Henderson was reported last week on National radio as saying that no-one in their right mind would buy inner city properties in Christchurch at the moment - which raises the obvious question of just how he managed to convince the Christchurch City Council to do just that.

Liquor industry ad an ‘Orwellian’ history lesson
Anyone who wants evidence of just how far the liquor industry will go to promote its product need look no further that the new DB Export advertising campaign as it attempts to rewrite New Zealand history in a way that would even astound ‘1984’ author, George Orwell.

The ad is set in 1958 around the time of the so-called ‘Black Budget’ of Labour’s Finance Minister, Arnold Nordmeyer. It paints Nordmeyer as a tight-fisted old bore who taxed beer to the extent that working men could no longer afford to drink. By contrast, brewer Moreton Coutts, the creator of DB export, is portrayed as giving back these working class drinkers not only their sacred turf of public bars, but also export quality beer at affordable prices.

In what is a distortion of epic proportion, the ad goes on to show archive footage of men rioting, ostensibly over the price of beer, when in fact the footage is from the 1951 waterfront lockout.

The truth is, that in the 1958 Budget, Nordmeyer raised excise on beer, spirits, cigarettes and petroleum as a part of a package to meet a balance of payments crisis that had been caused by the previous National government. Nordmeyer was putting the interests of New Zealand before short term political gain and was not trying to stop the working man’s drink after work. Nordmeyer was also, of course, the architect of New Zealand’s Public Health Scheme, the envy of most countries at the time of its introduction.

Pumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into patently dishonest advertising campaigns like this shows once again the level of cynicism shown by the liquor industry towards New Zealanders and the social problems their industry produces. In my view, the creators of this ad would have a place in George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth where lies are truth and truth is lies

My full press release can be found here.

The nine-point plan to social harm
In Parliament last month, I set out a nine-point plan on how a major social problem could be created in New Zealand with the active support of this government.
·         It starts with legalising a drug known to be of high risk to public health, commercialising that drug, and then selling it in supermarkets and other easily accessible places.
·         From there you make it legal to deal in the drug, particularly by glamorising its use through marketing, and then go on to bestow its manufacturers and dealers with honours and make them socially acceptable.
·         The icing on the cake could be to link the drug to major sporting teams and events, and for government to fund and Prime Minister to champion venues for taking this particular drug.
·         The Automobile Association could then support driving under that drug’s influence.

This might sound extreme, but the Government’s response to the Law Commission’s proposals on alcohol allows all of those things. The Commission describes alcohol as a legalised drug and proposes a new policy framework that it says amounts to a major shift in the regulation of alcohol. The Commission’s recommendations include increasing excise tax on alcohol, banning off-licence sales after 10.00pm, refusing entry to bars and night clubs after 2.00am and increasing the drinking age.

But what has been the Government’s response?
The Commission anticipated some opposition to its recommendations and this is exactly what has happened, to a degree that even I had not anticipated. In response to the report, the Government has done nothing whatsoever to address the problems created by alcohol or to fundamentally change the drinking culture in New Zealand.

The mood of the country towards alcohol abuse is changing, but that change is being led by the public and the media, not the Government. For example, there is 70% support to lower the drink-driving, blood-alcohol limit, yet the Government needs ‘more research’ before it will act. Why?

This Government, normally a slave to the polls, is out of step with the majority of New Zealanders and, until it changes, New Zealand’s record of deaths and injuries on our roads will remain among the worst in the world.

My speech on ‘the plan’ can be found here.

Will National decline liquor money?
I will be scrutinising closely donations from the liquor industry after National MPs objected to claims that their party takes industry money. In Parliament recently I asked National Party members to tell us, how much money is being put into the National Party’s ‘Victory Fund’ by the liquor industry?

For some reason they objected and wanted the question ruled out of order, claiming that it suggested they were influenced by liquor industry donations.

Attempting to have the question ruled out of order means that if it turns out that the Nats have accepted liquor industry donations and then pass pro-liquor laws, there is a potential breach of privilege issue.

If the Nats don’t want to be criticised for taking liquor industry money then they should simply publicly refuse to accept donations from that industry. Even anonymous donations have a habit of becoming public, so I look forward to National refusing any money from vested liquor interests – but I am not holding my breath.

Carole’s birthday
To end this newsletter on a celebratory note, I am delighted to report that we held a very successful 70th birthday brunch for my wife Carole during November. Held at the Clearwater Resort near Christchurch, around 80 friends, family and colleagues gathered to enjoy the occasion.

To me, a real highlight was being able to have so many of Carole’s family come from around New Zealand, a surprise to her as most had pretended they weren’t able to be there. And what a delight it was to hear so many nice speeches and comments about Carole from family members in particular.

A Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you all.

Parker’s election promise has bitten him on the backside

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-12-21T13:09:09+13:00

Bob Parker’s election promise that the Council’s affairs would be more transparent has bitten him on the backside again, says Wigram MP Jim Anderton.

“The whole secrecy thing was the main reason I stood for Mayor in the first place and this latest council story of $1million parking spaces for Council staff proves yet again that Bob Parker’s assertions that he’s learnt what the people want, shows he has a lot to learn”, says Jim Anderton.

“It’s now abundantly clear that since plans for the Music School at the Art Centre were thrown out, the failure to deliver an underground car park for its staff has put the Council in a tailspin when their secret plans backfired.

“The Press story certainly explains why Art’s Centre Director Ken Franklin wanted to clear out the stallholders from the Art’s Centre Market. What disappoints is the secret way the Council goes about its business.

“Why do we not get the same level of communication on Council’s business deals that we got 24-7 in the early days of the earthquake? Could it be the election is over?

“These behind-closed-doors meetings are like a rerun of the movie Groundhog Day. Ratepayers are going to get more incensed at the Council’s lack of open consultation and the use of excuses such as ‘commercially sensitive’. Mayor Parker’s mandate is to lead an open council, that is what the people of Christchurch want, not more backroom deals that only seem to be self-serving”, says Jim Anderton.

Reserve Bank statement shows unaffordability of cut in top tax rate

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

It’s National’s fault.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Energy Companies passing on commercial costs to vulnerable customers

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liquor industry ad an ‘Orwellian’ history lesson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pike River Tragedy Statement

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

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

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

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

Pike River Mine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We must make mining conditions safer.

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

Extended free parking critical to city’s survival

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government out of step with the nation over liquor reform

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will Nats decline liquor money?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alcohol Reform Bill

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

Alcohol Reform Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the National Party getting from the Liquor Industry?

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

Jim's E-News November 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

The full statement can be found here.

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

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

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

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

The full statement can be found here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And now, for something completely different

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

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

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

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

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

For more, go here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two Drinks Max: Lobby power.

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

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

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

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

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

More information can be found here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NZ Post appointment of Cameron

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Council should heed Ballantyne’s message

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

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

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

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

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

Council inaction causing local businesses to face closure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim's E-News September 2010

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

Get Jim’s E-News in your inbox here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the issues?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So here’s what I would do

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Civil Defence Headquarters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nick Smith’s suicide comments insensitive - again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Get Jim’s E-News in your inbox here.

Dental care issues – Report 2010

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

Thank you for inviting me today.

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

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

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

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

I might criticise their ideas - not necessarily their motivation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what are the options for affordable dental care?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nick Smith’s suicide comments insensitive - again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saving lives is more important than saving dollars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government response predictable

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

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

Christchurch Earthquake

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

Jim Anderton’s speech in Parliament.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today, every New Zealander is a citizen of Christchurch.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The government needs to make a commitment to move quickly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Decisions need to be made about public areas.

No decision should be made behind closed doors.

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

They too have skills and knowledge and experience to give.

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

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

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

Jim’s E-News July 2010

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

Jim’s E-News July 2010.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They're going to need help.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Translators and Interpreters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anderton hands over agriculture portfolio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Government has no ideas

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

Jim Anderton’s speech in the General Debate in parliament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then we had the job’s summit.

How’s that going?

No new jobs and unemployment is on the rise.

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

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

You can’t blame that on the recession.

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

At the most it saved only about one hundred jobs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mining is now meant to save the New Zealand economy.

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

So what’s the next big idea?

There isn’t one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kiwibank will get downgraded if sold, says credit rating agency

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

Mums and Dads borrowing to buy their own home will pay more mortgage interest if the government doesn't stop talking about selling Kiwibank.

That's what Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says will happen after confirmation from credit ratings agency Standard & Poors that it would downgrade Kiwibank if it is sold.

Standard & Poors said "the current ratings on Kiwibank are equalized with the bank's wholly government-owned parent New Zealand Post Ltd. ...The ratings on the bank get a significant uplift from the bank's stand-alone credit profile due to an unconditional and irrevocable guarantee from the parent. Consequently, any change in the bank's ownership--which would likely be accompanied by a dilution in the parent guarantee--would be a possible trigger for rating review."

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

"A downgrade makes Kiwibank's cost of borrowing more expensive, which means Mums and Dads pay more to borrow to buy a home.

"The Government's asset sales program is the worst feature of this year's Budget, and it’s about to cost costing Kiwi families money.

“What is there about the almost universally negative publicity following Bill English’s speculative comments about the sale of Kiwibank that this government does not understand?” says Jim Anderton.

Nats back to weasel words on Kiwibank

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Money still not flowing out of R&D fund

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

“What money? It’s taken this government eighteen months to say it is allocating $3.9 million to research projects. But it hasn’t given anyone a cent yet,” says Jim Anderton MP for Wigram.

The Primary Growth Partnership replaced the Labour-Progressive government’s Fast Forward Fund which would have allocated $2 billion worth of funding for research and development in the primary sector.

$700 million of that was already in the bank, but was taken back into government coffers, and replaced with $30 million, allocated to the new Primary Growth Partnership (PGP)

This week the PGP, which has so far failed to fund any research projects during the first 18 months of this National led government, announced that it had approved funding for three projects, worth about $3.9 million per year for five years.

“Don’t hold your breath. Apparently there is still a pile of paper work and bureaucracy to go through before even a time line for releasing the funding is agreed.

“This is the problem when you tie up innovative business investment decisions in red tape. The Fast Forward Fund was part ‘owned’ by the private sector. They made the decisions about who and how funding would be distributed in partnership with the government. An 18 month delay would have been totally unacceptable when it has resulted in such small scale decisions.

“Now, even when decisions are made to proceed, businesses are being told to sit back and be patient while ‘milestones’ are being delivered and strategy papers written to help decide when to release funds. Here’s a few ‘milestones’ the National government might want to mark:

- $700 million for R&D replaced with $30 million per year,
- $5 million of that is deducted to fund the National Center for Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research (not to help develop primary sector production),
- A further $2 has gone to fund the administrative costs of the PGP, and
- About $3.9 million is finally allocated to R&D projects, but wait - there’s a still a delay while more paper work is done.

“That leaves about $20 million unallocated. Going on the past 18 months, it will take them about ten years to allocate the rest of this miserly funding,” says Jim Anderton.

Maori Commercial Aquaculture Bill

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

Maori Commercial Aquaculture Bill
SPEECH NOTES

Under the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004, Maori were promised, by 2014, 20% of all new space from 1 January 2005 and the equivalent of 20% of “pre-commencement space”, that is aquaculture space that was approved between 1992 and 2005. As Minister of Fisheries from 2005 – 2008, I commenced a review of how the Crown could settle its pre-commencement space obligations to Maori, as required under the Settlement Act. The Ministry of fisheries prepared a consultation document which was released to iwi beneficiaries.

The review addressed the progress of the settlement to date and more importantly provided a plan for how the Crown intended to implement and fulfil its pre-commencement space obligations under the settlement.

The review found that it would be virtually impossible to achieve so I asked iwi to consider the benefits of an early settlement.

The Agreement encompassed in this Maori Commercial Aquaculture Bill today signals the government’s commitment, both the previous Labour-Progressive government which commenced this process, and the current government, to completing treaty settlements, in general, and ensuring Aquaculture in New Zealand can keep making progress in particular.

As the then Minister of Fisheries, I sent an invitation to iwi requesting a proposal for an early settlement of the Crowns pre-commencement space obligations. That invitation was issued after listening to iwi who wanted me to consider a regional settlement.

Iwi responded in kind to my invitation and have worked tirelessly with officials from the Ministry of Fisheries to produce the agreement embodied in this Bill.

The agreement and, subsequently this Bill, mirrors both the desires of iwi for the settlement and the direction of the Crown’s plan to settle Maori Aquaculture issues.

The Agreement in Principle provides for a payment of around $97 million for a full and final settlement of the Crowns current pre-commencement space obligations in the Coromandel and the whole of the South Island.

This agreement has only been possible because many iwi have found a way to work constructively together to reach a settlement, both with the Crown, and with each other. All those in industry and government who participated deserve our thanks and congratulations.

The ability of all parties to reach a significant milestone in such a short time is testament to the commitment shown by all involved.

This agreement and the Bill marks an important stage of the Maori Aquaculture Settlement and covers most of New Zealand’s highest value aquaculture development including the Hauraki Gulf, Marlborough and Tasman regions as well as the rest of the South Island.

This Bill reflects the good will shown by the Government and iwi to work together, to settle a treaty claim and bring certainty to all parties.

The iwi representatives, their officials and Te Ohu Kaimoana should be commended for their contribution to this settlement.

The early settlement will assist iwi and the aquaculture sector in their future endeavours to grow the aquaculture industry.

Aquaculture is a growth industry that has great potential for employment and investment opportunities for Maori. I wish them well.

Progressive Party Update

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

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

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

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

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

Now NZ Post on the block

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key Should Stop Playing Personal Politics And Come Clean On Kiwibank

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Japan PM resigns over broken promise - why not Key?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nats cynical games over Kiwibank sale

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

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

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

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

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

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

“I wonder how those people feel now?”

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

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

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

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

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

John Key promised not to sell Kiwibank 'ever'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Telecom share decline is a lesson for privatising government

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

This week's considerable reduction in Telecom's worth is only the latest chapter in a privatisation that should be a lesson to the current government's plans to resume asset sales, Progressive leader Jim Anderton says.

"Today's decline in value is the direct result of a monopoly that got privatised being unable to adapt when its monopoly position finally began to unwind.

"Telecom spent about fifteen years dramatically overcharging New Zealanders and blocking innovative competition because it was privatised as a monopoly.

"Billions of dollars were taken out of New Zealand by foreign owners, at a time when a National Government was saying it was owned by Kiwi Mums and Dads.

"Since its monopoly position has been eroded, Telecom has faded because its monopolistic behaviour was hard-baked into the company and it couldn't adapt.

"Most financial commentators supported the sale of Telecom, but it has been a disaster for New Zealand.

"Today the same commentators are still supporting privatisation of successful Kiwi businesses, like Kiwibank.

"I recall consultant Rob Cameron telling the NZ Post Board that Kiwibank would only have ten thousand 'low value' customers after five years. It has between seven and eight hundred thousand and that shows how much credibility he has in calling for privatisation now. Professor Tripe from Massey University claimed Kiwibank would be a dog, and now says it needs $600 million of private capital because it is growing so fast.

"Instead of listening to people who repeatedly get their predictions wrong, the government should look at the record of privatisation: Telecom, Air New Zealand, Kiwi Rail. Disaster, disaster, and even more disaster."

National's threat to sell Kiwibank

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

National’s threat to sell Kiwibank is economic vandalism, says the MP who started the bank.

Jim Anderton says people worried about Australian banks buying Kiwi bank will immediately be concerned.

“That can only hurt Kiwibank, and therefore hurt the Kiwi Mums and Dads who already own it. It is reckless for a finance minister to deliberately undermine the value of a public asset.

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

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

“National repeatedly promised not to sell Kiwibank,” Jim Anderton said.

“Just this week I received a letter from a retired superannuitant on the Hibiscus Coast who has approached every commercial bank, all Australian owned, for a loan to buy a modest retirement residence for himself. They all refused, and the only bank that would lend him the money, and has now given him peace of mind for his retirement, was Kiwibank.”

Canterbury people told to shut up and pay up

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

“Unelected commissioners running the regional council are telling Canterbury people to ‘shut up’ about democracy when it comes to submissions - they don’t want to hear about it,” says Jim Anderton, MP for Wigram.

Jim Anderton has obtained documents from the Riccarton Residents’ Association which show that the Commissioners are writing to submitters saying they will not hear submissions on “accountability through elected representatives”.

The Commissioners were appointed to replace the democratically elected Councillors and run the Environment Canterbury Regional Council. New elections will not take place for up to three and a half years.

“Silencing the voice of Canterbury people is a bad start for a bunch of unelected Commissioners, like David Caygill a former Christchurch City Councillor, Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister, who should know better,” says Jim Anderton.

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

“Canterbury people were shut out of the decision to sack the ECan Council and cancel elections for several years when the Environment Canterbury Act was rushed through Parliament under extra-ordinary urgency.

“Now the ECan Commissioners are taking away the one chance for Canterbury people to have their say on this issue,” Jim Anderton says.

A large number of people and organisations have already submitted questions on accountability and the need for representatives to be elected as soon as possible. The principle of accountability remains even if the Council has been sacked.

“The Government has said that there will be no elections for up to three and a half years. So why can’t local people and organisations not submit their views on why they think elections should be held in 12 months, or 18 months?”

Jim Anderton's Budget 2010 speech

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

What is this government saying to families on low incomes in today’s budget?

Let them eat cake!

It says ‘don’t worry about an increase in GST and rising food prices, because the rich eat more than the poor, so they’ll pay more in GST.’

Is that meant to make low income families feel better?

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

The rich have a choice if they want to spend more money and pay more GST. They can choose whether to upgrade the Mercedes or buy another boat. Those on lower incomes can’t choose whether or not to eat.

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

Well they won’t be envious Mr Key, they’ll be angry - like I am.

Are New Zealand families more or less equal after this budget?
They are less equal - and shame on the Prime Minister. After today’s budget the most wealthy New Zealanders will take home thousands of extra dollars per week compared to those on average incomes.

People like Telecom’s CEO who earned $7 million last year will get a tax cut of $6,608 per week. State sector CEO’s who earn more than $600,000 in some cases, will get a tax cut of nearly $500 per week.

If you’re earning $50,000 after you pay more in GST at the supermarket, you’ll only take home $5 per week. And the chances are - that will be wiped out by inflation anyway!

Is a CEO who got a thousand dollar a week pay rise last year, really the highest priority for a seven hundred dollar a week tax cut this year?

New Zealand is now on a par with the UK which has one of the most entrenched income gaps between rich and poor.

Our ancestors came to this country to get away from that inequality! John Key is determined to bring it back with him from his years speculating overseas.

Others might be taken in by the Prime Minister’s ‘rags to riches’ story. Not me.

I remember he helped people make a pot of money speculating against the New Zealand dollar in the 1980s, at a cost to New Zealand of $700 million. Guess what? At the same time, New Zealand’s increasing rate of income inequality became one of the worst in the OECD.

Over the same period, Australia closed the gap between rich and poor. Income inequality widened again under National governments in the 1990s. And it started to get better during the period of a Labour-led government in 1999-2008.

Mr Key mis-led the House yesterday when he said - and I quote - “income gaps between rich and poor...became worse under the previous Labour Government".

No Mr Key! It became better, and is set to become worse again under this National government. (And today I’ll table the facts to prove it.)

Here they are. Under a Labour-Progressive government between 2001 and 2008 everyone became richer - even people like, Mr Key.

But those on low-middle incomes increased their wealth the most, thanks to the Working for Families tax break. We closed the gap - National is widening it.

The Prime Minister also said yesterday that it was a terrible injustice that 10% of the wealthiest New Zealanders pay 44% of the tax. What does the Prime Minister think they do in Australia? 10% pay 46% of all tax!

Turns out that’s what most countries do. Those who earn more, pay more tax, because they earn a higher share of the income. It’s a fair tax system.

But John Key is no Robin Hood. More like the Sheriff of Nottingham, looking after his own.

Will the average New Zealander be better off after the Sheriff’s budget? No.
Because they’re not getting the lion’s share of the tax cut. Guess who got the lion’s share from the last round of tax cuts? The same top earners. Has the penny dropped yet? If people are not on a high income, this government is not going to help.

Some might have voted for them in 2008 - but they can make them a one-term government in 2011. The first since 1975 - and good riddance. If they’re on an average income but had aspirations to do better - forget it.

This is a budget that puts reinforced glass into the glass ceiling.
This government is showing its true colours today. It doesn’t want all our people to prosper. It wants them to know their place.

Will there be more children lifted out of poverty after today’s budget? No.
A recent UNICEF survey of the well-being of children puts New Zealand almost last - 24th out of 25 countries. It measured immunisation levels, infant death and early death from injury and illness.

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

Here’s what a respected Professor of Epidemiology in New Zealand said recently “In New Zealand, social injustice is killing and maiming our children on a grand scale” We top the scales for OECD rates of whooping cough, rheumatic fever, pneumonia and other diseases in children.

We spend less than the OECD average on child health, and the only thing that will change as a result of this budget is that this appalling situation will get worse.
28% of our children still live in poverty.

That rate started to decline under the last Labour Progressive government for the first time in decades. Working for Families lifted about 100,000 children out of poverty.

Senior people in the medical profession know what the problem is - and they know what the answer is. The politics of inequality.

Why do we have such high rates of child illness and death? Poverty. And how do you get rid of poverty? You increase people’s incomes, give them decent wages and jobs.

Will there be more jobs after today? No.
There is nothing in this budget to create new jobs. Our unemployment rates have ballooned since this government came to power - to over 7%.

The National government can’t blame the recession. Because at the same time, Australia’s unemployment has dropped to just over 5%.

How many jobs has John Key’s cycle way created so far? None!

What about the nine day fortnight? It was meant to save thousands of jobs - but didn’t.

New Zealand doesn’t have a tax problem - it has a wage problem.
National has no plan to increase wages. If John Key thinks that cutting the top tax rate will stop young doctors or entrepreneurs going overseas, he’s dreaming. Australia’s top tax rate is 45 cents in the dollar - much higher than New Zealand’s.

New Zealand’s tax system compared to the rest of the world has been one of the most progressive for average income earners, according to a recent OECD report.

John Key should ask himself why he left the country to go into the world of international speculation. Did he leave to avoid our high taxes? I doubt it.

I’m sure he left because he could earn more overseas. Tax cuts for the wealthy won’t increase the wage packet of ordinary New Zealanders.

Will the economy grow as a result of the Sheriff’s budget today? No.
There is nothing in this budget to increase our exports.
Nothing to encourage us to save.
Nothing to grow the economy.
No new ideas.

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

Where’s the money for science and research & development?
John Key has scrapped the $2 billion worth of spending on R&D that we had set aside under a Labour-Progressive government. And what’s he replaced it with? A science advisor and a few ‘vouchers’.

The whole package, including the new vouchers in the budget amount to less than 26% of what business and science would have got under a Labour-Progressive government.
Does this anti-science government think that new technologies will just appear out of thin air?

In the meantime, will most New Zealanders pay more? Yes.
The larger the tax cut National gives to the top income earners, the smaller the amount left over for people on the average wage. Someone has to pay.

More GST at the shops.
Increased property tax will increase rents.
More at the petrol pump.
More for power bills
More for ACC.
More for student loans.
More for early childhood education.
This is not a budget for hardworking New
Zealanders and Kiwi families.

Some voted for this government because they thought the Prime Minister’s ‘rags to riches’ story might rub off on our country.

But it turns out Robin Hood is really the Sheriff of Nottingham with a false smile - and the message is clear.

‘Let them eat cake!’

This budget is a disgrace and this parliament should be both ashamed and angry to receive it.

Let them eat cake!

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

The gap between rich and poor is set to widen after today’s budget, says Jim Anderton MP for Wigram.

“This National led government has shown its true colours today. The CEO of Telecom who reportedly earned $7 million last year, will now get an extra $6608 per week. Those on $600,000 will take home about an extra $500.

Meanwhile working Kiwis on $50,000 will spend about an extra $23 on increased GST at the supermarket, so their tax cut will be a miserly $5.50. More likely it will be wiped out by inflation.

Those on low incomes will pay more as a result of an increase in GST from 12.5% to 15%.

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

“There is nothing in this budget to help grow the economy or create jobs. John Key has got rid of $2 billion worth of Research and Development set up by the last Labour-Progressive government and replaced it with his own personal science advisor and just over a quarter of what scientists would have got under our government.

“New Zealand’s rates of increasing income inequality were amongst the worst in the world according to OECD figures. We only started to close that gap under a Labour-Progressive government. Now the gap will widen again.”

A recent UNICEF survey of the well-being of children puts New Zealand almost last - 24th out of 25 countries. It measured immunisation levels, infant death and early death from
injury and illness.

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

“If you voted for this government because you thought John Key’s ‘rag to riches’ story might rub off on the country, now you know he is no Robin Hood - more a Sheriff of Nottingham”, Jim Anderton said today.

Odyssey House 25th Anniversary

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

Odyssey House Trust has been successfully providing treatment in Christchurch for nearly 25 years. It opened in 1985.

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

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

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

People assume - wrongly - that these problems are nothing to do with them. But there’s hardly a family in New Zealand that hasn’t been touched by alcohol or drug abuse.

There are now 70,000 physical and sexual assaults a year in New Zealand that can be attributed to alcohol abuse. That’s 1350 a week.

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

I’ve been working with Doug Sellman to campaign for the +5 solution to alcohol abuse, and I know that Odyssey House is supportive.

These proposals would: Raise alcohol prices, raise the purchase age, reduce accessibility of alcohol, reduce marketing and advertising of alcohol, and increase drink-driving measures. And the ‘plus’ is increased treatment like the programmes provided at Odyssey.

As many of you know, I’ve also campaigned to curb drug abuse. When I was minister I banned the party drug BZP.

So now there’s an ad running on the radio which promotes the latest legal party pill, and it starts off by saying: “Don’t let Uncle Jim ruin the Party!”

Apparently, last week, I’ve discovered I have a new nick-name in one of the university magazines: ‘Jim BANderton.’ If you put your head above the parapet on these issues, expect to get a whack!

I have no doubt that we have a drinking problem in New Zealand - and we also have a drug problem – but, of course, alcohol is also a drug – the most serious drug affecting the lives of New Zealanders.

The biggest challenge we face is attitude. We need a culture change - where binge drinking isn’t tolerated and regular drug use isn’t seen as a ‘normal’ way to have a good time.

My 6 year old godson plays ripper rugby, and it’s obscene to see 6 year olds running around with beer ads all over the flags and the goal posts!

The work that Odyssey House has done over 25 years has been remarkable, and I’ve been proud to be a part of it when as Minister I managed to obtain the funds for a new youth residential facility.

At the time, there were people who thought it was a mad idea, because - they said - you only get so many chances at bidding for money when you’re a small party in government like the Progressive Party.

We had to be very strategic when we went to see our coalition partners asking for money out of the government’s budget.

A new residential facility at Odyssey House wasn’t a big national project like Kiwibank. But it was thinking like that, that had left Christchurch without any residential centre, and four in five youth offenders with a drug or alcohol problem.

We had to be strong enough to care about these issues locally, and you have shown over the last few years, that that money was well spent. It hasn’t been easy. Its taken vision, hard work and commitment.

You have shown that this community cares enough to give people a second chance. I’ve heard stories from graduates of Odyssey who when they arrive, had given up on life. What makes the difference are the programmes and the staff.

Here’s what one young woman said about the staff: “I have never encountered such unconditional acceptance. It was the first time in years that I had been treated as an equal and as an adult. At first I was suspicious of their motives because I thought nobody can be this nice or kind or knowledgeable and want to work with people like us – mentally ill and grossly addicted to alcohol or drugs. We’re messy and smelly and grumpy and violent.”

Gradually she accepted that the staff were genuine and she decided to “give it a shot”.

This young woman is now studying for a Bachelor of Alcohol & Drug Studies at WelTec. Her dream is to one day work for Odyssey House.

What impresses me the most, however, is that Odyssey House in Christchurch is evidence that our community cares. It was a core group of 16 residents who got together and set it up in the first place in 1985.

Since then, you have been successfully providing treatment in Christchurch. Today, the community is still at the heart of the Odyssey House model. People learn how to use the resources in the community to help them recover.
Another example I read about was a 47 year old who said Odyssey House had “ruined” his career - his criminal career!

He started in crime and drugs when he was fourteen. He had been, over the years, into everything. Heroin in the eighties, P for eight years. He spent ten years of his life in jail. And one day he finally showed up in front of a judge who gave him a choice between going inside or going to Odyssey House. He found out that it was no soft option.

Today, that person is studying at a tertiary institution and helping others to move away from drugs. Now, you are getting people like him age 14 - not 47 - before they make big mistakes; before they spend ten years in jail.

Here’s another quote from an Odyssey House graduate: “I can’t say enough about Odyssey. It gave me a life. I feel whole, capable, loveable. I never thought that would happen.”

That’s what you are doing every day at Odyssey House Christchurch; you are giving people back their lives. I congratulate everyone involved today.

It took tenacity and strength by a caring community to open Odyssey House 25 years ago, and it will take the same strength to keep it going for another 25 years.

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

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

Planned cuts in the top rate of tax weaken the ability of the government to continue to provide universal superannuation in the way all parties agreed to in the New Zealand Superannuation Accord, Progressive Party MP Jim Anderton says.

He has released the Progressive Party’s submission to the 2010 New Zealand Superannuation Retirement Income Review today.

Jim Anderton was one of the signatories of the 1993 Superannuation Accord that aimed to provide long-term stability to superannuation.

The main principle agreed to by all parties was that ‘the net amount provided from public funds for a retired person should reduce as that person’s total income increases’.

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

“If the National Government makes income tax less progressive in this budget by reducing the top personal income tax rate, then how is it going to meet the Accord principle that ‘the net amount provided from public funds for a retired person should reduce as that person’s total income increases’?

“Either National will ultimately reduce entitlement to superannuation, or it no longer believes that the amount provided from public funds should decrease as a person’s income increases. If it is the latter, then National will be solely to blame if it tries to say the cost of superannuation is unsustainable. Alternatively, if it is ultimately planning to cut publicly provided retirement incomes, then people deserve to be told.”

Jim Anderton’s submission shows that continuing New Zealand Superannuation at age 65, indexed to wages, is sustainable for the long term provided the government sticks to Accord principles.

“The future cost of super is affordable, but the government needs to keep the means to afford it”, Jim Anderton said.

Tobacco Excise bill

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

Jim Anderton’s speech in Parliament on the Excise and Excise-Equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill first reading, 29 May 2010.

This bill to increase excise duties on tobacco products is being introduced under extraordinary urgency. I understand that. The House therefore understands that this issue is urgent: there is no public debate allowable; there is no select committee and so on. I happen to agree with what the government is proposing and I will support it. But this Bill highlights the need the reasons why this step, in particular, is being taken to increase the price of a legal drug that is dangerous to the health of any New Zealander who partakes of it.

The reason this bill is being introduced is that the price effect of tobacco is significant. If we increase the price of tobacco we reduce the volume of tobacco that is smoked. There is a linear relationship and many studies all around the world will show exactly the same thing for product after product.

Unfortunately, if we look at supermarkets of New Zealand, we see that Coca-Cola is cheaper than water or milk. People buy Coca-Cola. Why? It is because it is cheaper. It may well be disastrous for the teeth of the children who are drinking it – and it is – but nevertheless, because it is cheap, people buy it.

That is why this price effect will be relevant in this case. I have to say, however, that just 24 hours ago, within minutes of the Law Commission’s report on alcohol being introduced into this House, the government immediately, through Simon Power, the Minister of justice, reacted and said it was not going to put up the price of alcohol.

It did that immediately. It did not give any consideration to the report, the ink was not dry on the report, and we were told that no, the Government was not going to increase the price. Would a price increase for alcohol reduce alcohol consumption? Yes, it would. It is a very effective means of doing it. I know that because I introduced a Bill that increased the price of so-called light spirits, at 23 per cent proof alcohol, which target young people. I was lambasted by the industry.

Full page ads were taken out against me personally, but light spirits were reduced by 85 per cent in terms of sales, and then they went off the market. That does not mean to say that there are not still alcopops and stuff like that, but these were lethal light spirits.

They were 25 per cent proof of alcohol drinks with vodka, gin, whisky, and so on. So we know that this 30 per cent increase in tobacco will be effective, but Mr Power said about alcohol that such a change would be unfair to all the people who drink alcohol. Well, I presume that an increase of more than 30 per cent in the price of alcohol will be unfair to some of the people who smoke alcohol too. I still agree with it, but it is amazing how an attitude can change in one day from one position on the issue of alcohol to another on tobacco, where we can have a crack at them.

Chris Tremain: You might find that a significantly larger proportion of the population enjoy a glass of wine. What a stupid thing to say.

Hon. Jim Anderton: Oh, I see. We will hear this. Here is the industry line. I can hear it. Mr Dunne is not here, so we have plenty of acolytes in his place. They are sprouting the industry line. It is true that 5000 people die in New Zealand every year from tobacco smoking, and that makes this kind of measure significant and important. What is there about the social, economic, and health problems of alcohol that make it different from tobacco? Is it a significant social and economic health cost? We just heard Dr Blue say that the cost of tobacco-related harm is $1 billion to $2 billion.
The cost of alcohol-related harm to New Zealand is indicated by reputable economists and analysts to be in the order of $2 billion to $3 billion a year.

That is at least as much as smoking and could well be more, so there is no problem about it being a significant cost. Is drinking alcohol a health risk? Yes, it is. It is a very serious health risk, and the jury is coming in on that all the time.

Are between 60 – 80 per cent of all police arrests to do with alcohol abuse? Yes, they are. Are 60 per cent of the people who are in our prisons affected by alcohol? The answer is yes.

Yet we are told that we desperately need passed under extraordinary urgency through the House a tobacco-related bill, which I personally support, a day after we are told that the price effect is not going to be contemplated in alcohol, when demonstrably all the effects of the tobacco use plus some additional effects are there in evidence before us.

The Government has a knee-jerk reaction against that. Why is that? Well, the tobacco industry is on the ropes, and the people are brave now. Dr Blue has said that she did not use to believe the philosophy behind this bill, and there are plenty of people on the other side of the house like her.

When Helen Clark was pushing for a change like this one, and was pilloried as the minister of Health for doing it in – when was that, 1990?

Hon Darren Hughes: Yes, 20 years ago.

Hon Jim Anderton: So that was 20 years ago. She did not have too much support then, but now it is the brave thing to do. Why? Because everything has been done, practically, and the tobacco industry has given up. It knows that it is a done deal. The liquor industry has not given up. Oh, no. It is really into this issue, and it will fight it tooth and claw.

The brave Government will take on the ‘on the ropes’ tobacco industry, but it will not have a bar of taking on the liquor industry, which is actually a much more significant and important problem facing New Zealand now than ever before.

Will raising the price of alcohol reduce the volume of alcohol consumed? Absolutely, it will but we have no courage from the Government on this issue. So under extraordinary urgency we are passing this bill.

As for the Government’s opposition to raising the price of the most dangerous drug in New Zealand, I could call that a word which I am not allowed to use in this House, so I will say that it is one of the most significant acts of double standards I have ever seen.

On one day a serious drug is not to be touched in terms of price, even though the price effect will be very effective, and I acknowledge that; on the next day, the industry that really does not have a feather to fly with will be clobbered into the ground because the brave government will take it on after all the hard work has been done.

It will not take on an industry that is still up there and fighting tooth and claw to hang on. I heard the representative of the hospitality industry this morning on Morning Report. He admitted that every single thing in the alcohol legislation that he agrees with is a vested interest of the industry.

He said that. He said: “Yes, it is a vested interest of the industry. I admit that. Yes, that is too, and that is too.”

The interviewer asked him whether there was anything thing that was not a vested interest among the measures he agreed with. The answer was no. Oh well, we understand where the industry is coming from. But Mr Dunne did not. He had to meet the representatives of the industry seven times, and he was not sure what they meant.

He knew what Professor Doug Sellman meant; Peter Dunne would not meet with Doug Sellman at all.

I support this legislation, and I have contempt for the government that is bringing this in one day after it backed off completely from doing the most effective thing on alcohol. I have contempt for it;

I am telling members that now. It would have been an act of at least some responsibility to do that yesterday. This initiative needed to be done, and it has to be done regularly. I support it, but I contrast it with the completely mealy-mouthed approach we had yesterday on alcohol, and I am ashamed of the government for that.

Deal with alcohol ads to deal with binge drinking culture

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

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

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

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

“The police know this; 60 percent of people arrested by the police were under the influence of alcohol when they committed their crime. There are now 70,000 physical and sexual assaults a year in New Zealand that can be attributed to alcohol abuse. That’s 1350 a week.

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

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

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

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

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

Government favours alcohol industry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support for changes to alcohol law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Affordable dental care within reach for all Kiwis

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

Affordable dental care within reach for all Kiwis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The State of the Nation's teeth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are making history again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the options for affordable dental care?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beer in a can recipe for trouble

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rugby song sounds like beer ad from the 1990s

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government cancels democracy in Canterbury

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

In an unprecedented attack on local democracy, the National government has seized control of local government in Canterbury and completely disregarded the wishes of ratepayers, says Jim Anderton, MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader.

Environment Minister Nick Smith and Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hyde today announced they would sack the Canterbury Regional Council. They also announced there will be no elections for at least three years.

“This is an outrage. 14 elected councillors have just been fired by the Ministers of Local Government and Environment, Rodney Hyde and Nick Smith.

The decision comes after a report by former National Party MP Wyatt Creech. The report recommended sacking the elected councillors and replacing them with appointed commissioners.

“Ratepayers and local farmers have not been consulted. The Councillors in the firing line have only been told this morning that their jobs are gone. This is the kind of response we read about happening in Fiji - not New Zealand.

“If this is how the government proposes to solve the water crisis in Canterbury, then I have grave concerns,” says Jim Anderton.

“ECan has made mistakes in its handling of water issues but it is ironic that ECan was on the brink of coming up with a coherent plan for dealing with the water crisis in Canterbury. Now any solution is on hold while the bureaucrats appointed by Rodney Hyde and Nick Smith move in to take over.

“If the government was serious about water, it would do more than spend a pathetic $700,000 per year through the Community Irrigation Fund on this problem. It would stop playing politics and get serious about water storage. We have plenty of water in and around Canterbury; our problem is how to store it. ECan was about to do something about that,” Jim Anderton said.

ACC’s unlawful stealth policy change

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

People who are injured are having their claims ruled out because of a stealth policy change at ACC that the government won’t acknowledge, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.

In parliament today he challenged the ACC minister over a doubling in the number of cases being taken on formal review after being declined because of a pre-existing condition.

“The law is clear that ACC cannot cover situations caused wholly or substantially by pre-existing conditions or aging. Fair enough. But the law does not permit ACC to decline cover just because of a pre-existing condition.

“Since the change of government, ACC has been declining cover on that ground in what appears to be unprecedented numbers. The government refuses to fess up to a policy change, but record numbers of people are contacting me. And how else to explain a doubling in numbers of claims sent for formal review - suddenly on national taking office.”

From 2004/05 the proportion of claims sent for formal review fluctuated between 0.13 and 0.18 per cent of all claims (about 2,200, to 3,000 a year). Suddenly, when national took office the numbers increased to 0.33 per cent. That would amount to around two thousand affected people.

Many thousands more people are having their claims denied, and can’t afford the cost of formal review and court cases.

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

“There must have been a policy change. According to some of the best surgeons and specialists many of the ‘pre-existing conditions’ have nothing to do with the cause of injury and ACC has no grounds in law to reject people who need cover. This policy change is therefore unlawful,” Jim Anderton said.

The information below was provided by a series of written questions from the Minister for ACC and clearly shows that ACC did not have any information on which they could base policy changes as substantial as they have been.

ACC does not capture data on ‘pre-existing degeneration’, as a decline of cover classification,

ACC does not capture data on the proportion of claims for treatment of shoulder injuries that have been declined due to a finding of ‘pre-existing degeneration’,

ACC does not capture data regarding the number of reviews which dispute an ACC decision to decline treatments and/or cover on the grounds of ‘pre-existing degenerative’ condition,

ACC does not capture data regarding the number of appeals which dispute an ACC decision to decline treatment and/or cover on the grounds of ‘pre-existing degenerative’ condition,

ACC does not keep data on the average legal costs of defending court decisions relating to the presence of a ‘pre-existing degenerative’ condition,

Changing ACC policy by stealth

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

Column by Jim Anderton, MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader

Published in the Press, 29 March 2010

Imagine your insurance company decides to change the coverage of your home contents insurance without telling you. You’ve paid your premiums for years but when you come to make a claim after a burglary, they turn you down. Something to do with your house now having a new pre-existing vulnerability to burglars. This is news to you.

You would have grounds for taking them to court for breach of contract, and the chances are you’d win.

If ACC was a private insurance company, the New Zealand public could right now take them to court, because under the direction of this National government they are perverting the spirit and the letter of the ACC legislation by turning down injury victims just for having a ‘pre-existing condition.’

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

Minister for ACC Nick Smith and the CEO of ACC Dr Jan White say they are just ‘sticking more closely to the legislation.’

But according to some of the best surgeons and specialists in the country, many of these ‘pre-existing conditions’ have nothing to do with the cause of the injury. And if the ‘pre-existing condition’ didn’t cause the injury, ACC has no grounds in the legislation to reject people who need help.

Here’s what the legislation says; ACC cannot cover situations caused “wholly or substantially” by pre-existing conditions or aging. Fair enough. It doesn’t say you can reject people just for having a pre-existing condition.

That is a change in policy.

I would like to know who rubber stamped this change, and under what authority they acted.

It’s ironic that President Obama has just introduced health reforms in the United States to stop insurance companies turning people away because of ‘pre-existing conditions.’ Some people were even being rejected because they had hay fever. Meanwhile New Zealand’s National Government is turning ACC into the worst kind of private insurance company.

What makes this change in policy even worse is that the government appears to be acting on a complete absence of data and information.

When I asked the Minister for ACC Nick Smith, in Parliament, how many accident victims with ‘pre-existing conditions’ have successfully overturned their ACC review in court, he said that ‘ACC does not keep this data’. He couldn’t tell me anything.

It’s ironic that when it comes to proving that ACC has gone to hell in a hand basket and has no money, suddenly the Minister does have data.

But that data is highly controversial. ACC was set up to be a pay-as-you-go fund. In other words, you pay for the injuries that happen with the levies raised in the same year. The figures that the government and ACC use to show that ACC is in financial hot water are based on paying money now for accidents that may or may not occur in the future.

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

We can’t possibly predict what improvements will be developed in the future that may or may not reduce the number of accidents.

The truth is ACC took in $1 billion more than it spent on claims last year, and it’s investment portfolio has increased by over $2 million in the last two years. It’s hardly going down the plug hole.

ACC isn’t free - we all pay levies. We pay to have a system that isn’t one in which an insurance company tries to find ways to avoid helping its policy holders when they need it. We pay to have a no fault compensation system which covers us all, no matter what risks we have to take in our work or on the sports field, and no matter how old we are.

If this National-led government wants to destroy ACC and prepare it for privatisation, then they will overturn the spirit of fairness and decency that led Sir Owen Woodhouse to come up with an accident compensation scheme that is the envy of the world. It helps people, not the insurance companies and lawyers who want to make a quick buck. I don’t think New Zealanders will not give that up without a fight.

I certainly won’t.

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

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

Claims that ministerial collective responsibility stops Tariana Turia from voting against the government’s welfare reforms are a convenient fiction, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.

“Ms Turia is ignoring the last decade of political practice within MMP agreements that allow for minority parties as coalition partners in government to agree to disagree. When I was a minister I voted against the government several times, including against a free trade deal. If it was possible to do that, then it is possible for Ms Turia to vote against welfare changes.

“If, as Ms Turia states, she has not been briefed on the welfare reforms and the Maori Party leadership has not committed to vote for them in the House, Ms Turia is under no obligation at all to vote for them. To say she has to as a minister is just not politically accurate. She is tying herself in knots by speaking out against them, but then claiming she has to vote for them anyway.

“The welfare changes won’t create any jobs, or the skills that long-term job seekers need. If Ms Turia and the Maori Party disagree with the changes, then it is possible for ministers to agree to disagree. That allows parties to support the policies they voted for, instead of abandoning their own people, as Ms Turia appears to be doing by supporting higher Maori unemployment,” Jim Anderton said.

Progressives contribute to heart surgery unit in Zambia

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

The Progressive Party has raised $1000 to help increase the number of heart operations in Zambia, particularly for young underprivileged Zambians with life-threatening conditions” says leader Jim Anderton.

The Mutima project is run by medical volunteers based in Christchurch and New Zealand.

It supports a cardiac surgical team from New Zealand to perform one hundred life-saving heart operations on young Zambian patients at the University Teaching Hospital in Lusaka.

“The long term goal is to create a dedicated cardiac surgery unit in Zambia so that they have the capacity and the know-how to perform these kinds of operations themselves,” says Jim Anderton.

Jim Anderton and other Progressive party members joined hundreds of Canterbury people, including many cardiac patients, on a six kilometre walk around Hagley Park on Sunday to raise money for the Mutima project.

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

“We are a stronger and more caring community because we live amongst people like this.”

Zambia is a poor landlocked country in Southern Africa with a population of about 12 million. 60% live in poverty, earning less than $1 a day. One in five adults is infected by HIV.

The Mutima Trust was formed in 2009. In September a team of specialists will travel to Zambia for three weeks where they will carry out the first of one hundred heart valve replacements on young Zambians.
“These kind of projects leave behind a better functioning hospital system so that in the future Zambian surgeons can perform critical surgery themselves and projects like Mutima won’t be necessary. That is the best kind of aid and development, and I congratulate everyone involved, ” says Jim Anderton

Save 198 Youth Health Centre

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

Save 198 Youth Health Centre

Jim Anderton’s address to rally

The services provided by the 198 Youth Health Centre over the last 10 years have played a critical part in the mental and physical well-being of tens of thousands of our most vulnerable young citizens, local Wigram MP, Jim Anderton said today.

“At a time when the National led government is calling for more services in the areas of mental health, comprehensive health services to primary care/general practitioner level, not to mention nursing, family planning, counselling vaccinations, alcohol and drug, sexual and reproductive health, peer support and smoking cessation services, this is the very worst time to cease adequate funding for 198 which provides exactly these services.

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

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

“At a time when the Christchurch City Council is also reducing its funding for voluntary community organisations it is vitally important that concerned citizens in this city vigorously protest against this serious backward step in the provision of these and other crucial community services.

“For the 198 Youth Health Centre services to continue requires only a very modest amount of additional government funding, approximately around $100,000 per year for what is already a low cost, high quality health service.

“Good wishes for your protest. Be assured that I and my Labour Parliamentary colleagues will be joining you in this fight. I’m certain it is one we can win, no matter how long it takes,” Jim Anderton said.

Mental health disaster unfolding in Canterbury DHB

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

Something has gone terribly wrong with the Canterbury DHB’s management of New Zealand’s only high quality Eating Disorder Unit, Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.

He says the resignation of the clinical director, Geoff Buckett, is only the latest disaster.

Dr Buckett is going to Sydney to work for one of the best eating disorder clinics in the world. He has been highly critical of the ‘exclusion from decision making tables’ of the mental health service, and especially of plans to remove adolescents from specialty care.

Jim Anderton has learned that eleven other psychiatrists have also recently resigned, including the chief of psychiatry Dr Phil Brinded.

“Why is the Board and management of the Canterbury DHB overseeing this disaster, with apparent disregard for the serious consequences for the most vulnerable patients and families anyone can imagine?

“Either they know about it and have done nothing, or they don’t know, which is almost worse.

“With the 198 Youth Centre Service going down one day and the Eating Disorder Unit the next, one wonders what else is about to happen to an already fragile mental health system.”

Financial review Debate - Appropriations Bill - Agriculture

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

Financial review Debate - Appropriations Bill - Agriculture

The question for the government to answer is this: where in this appropriation has it made decisions that will achieve a step change in this country’s economic performance?

The answer is ‘Nowhere’.

There are two hugely contrasting approaches to the New Zealand economy in this House.
Both sides of this House know our economy has to do much better.

Over that side, the government’s entire programme for transforming New Zealand is to increase GST and drop the top tax rate for the most affluent New Zealanders – and yes, build a cycleway! That’s it. That’s their one shot.

And over this side - there is a long list of ideas to foster innovation, create jobs and increase incomes. Research and development, investment in science and skills, partnerships with the sectors, the businesses, the institutions and the people who can bring great New Zealand ideas to market.

National says it supports them - but this appropriation tells a different story. Where is the R&D investment here?

The government cut $700 million from the New Zealand Fast Forward Fund; that is a total cut of $2 billion in New Zealand’s innovation, and it was already to go when they took office. $700m matched dollar for dollar by industry plus interest earned over 10 years = $2 billion.

The government abolished that and replaced it with a primary partnership that has so far completely failed. Eighteen months have been wasted, and not a single project has been funded – not one cent has been invested. Those are years we will never get back.

I thought when the government axed Fast Forward that it was coasting in neutral.
But it is actually going backwards.

It’s overseeing the axing of over forty jobs at AgResearch. Fifty jobs have already been lost in biosecurity. How is that going to help innovation and science in the most productive and innovative part of our economy? It’s going to reduce future growth.

Our future prosperity and jobs depend on science and innovation, and the sector where innovation and science makes the most difference in New Zealand is the primary sector.
It makes no sense to hack off the jobs of forty scientists.

What does the prime minister say about it? He says the government is ‘not inclined to step in to save the jobs.” He’s relaxed about it.
The prime minister calls it “a necessary adjustment to deal with the structure of AgResearch as it currently finds itself” because they’ve got “too much capacity in certain areas". That is nothing less than doublespeak.

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

I’ll tell members why AgResearch has too much capacity. It was meant to be working in partnership on research projects that would have been funded by the New Zealand Fast Forward Fund.

The government chopped the science funding, and now, of course, we’re losing the scientists.

The farmers themselves are not inclined to stump up for research in areas like wool because they know the government has sawn them off. They’re not going out there alone when the rug is being pulled out from under them.

So the prime minister says Ag Research has “too much capacity”. That can only be possible if the government thinks there is too much science already being done in New Zealand.

What has this government got against science anyway? It seems to be on a crusade to smash every limb of science, research and innovation in New Zealand. The first thing this government did - the very first policy it came into the House and implemented - was imposing the largest increase in company tax in New Zealand’s history. It targeted, very carefully, our most innovative companies.

By removing research and development tax credits, $700 million was gone over just 3 years for that purpose. Is it any wonder, then, that we are lagging behind in ways that we never envisaged? What was supposed to happen after we came out of the recession – which of course has been worldwide, was that our economic development wheels would be running really fast.

I look through this appropriation for the pro-science policies that have replaced the R&D tax credits. Where are they? Tragically they don’t exist.

John Key still says we will catch up with Australia. Yeah, right! We will catch up with them all alright – sometime never.

Speech to the Alcohol Causes Violence conference

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

Any day of any week you can open any newspaper, or watch any news bulletin, and the evidence is plain: Alcohol-fuelled violence. Alcohol-fuelled crime. A culture of binge drinking.

Stories like these…
* A brutal and baffling weekend attack which left a young couple critically injured in a west Auckland park has nearby residents fearing for their own safety

* A man walking his dog found the young man semi-conscious in the park at 7am on Sunday morning with a fractured skull and bleeding on the brain

* Six hours into her shift, Heretini had had no break. But she rallied to care for her last patient, a young man with head injuries and lacerations to most of his body. He had fallen out of the window of a moving car while hanging onto the coat hanger handle above the vehicle’s back door.

* The veteran of the Malayan campaign and the Vietnam war was shocked by the viciousness and callousness of the youths. His daughter Jillian was knocked unconscious and her boyfriend was stomped on the head when they arrived home in a taxi as he was being set upon by the mob

* “She was drunk as a skunk”, he said. Mr McKenzie, who survived a serious heart attack two years ago, lost three teeth and received bruising and cuts to his head and body.

That’s just a sample of the sorts of headlines reflecting the every day reality of alcohol in New Zealand, and the results of our drinking culture.

On conservative figures prepared by the Ministry of Health the harm alcohol causes costs between $1.5 and $2.5 billion every year. Three out of five people who are arrested are under the influence of alcohol at the time they commit the offence for which they’re arrested.

If we want to reduce the level of crime in New Zealand, the fastest way we can make a difference, and the biggest difference we can make, would be to make alcohol less available. And conversely, in recent years when alcohol has been made more available, the harm caused by alcohol has risen as well.

Between half and three-quarters of all police work is associated in some way with alcohol abuse. Three quarters of adults arriving at emergency departments on Thursday, Friday or Saturday night have alcohol related injuries.

The Salvation Army says alcohol is present in four out of five domestic violence cases.

Here’s another statistic to make you think; according to a recent medical journal article, there are now 70,000 physical and sexual assaults a year in New Zealand that can be linked to alcohol. That’s 1350 a week.

I support changing the law to make alcohol less available.
I support raising the drinking age and restricting the number of outlets where alcohol is sold.
I support lowering the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit for drivers over 20 years of age from 0.08 to 0.05.
I would raise alcohol prices, reduce alcohol marketing and advertising and increase drink-driving measures.

If we made some of these changes then at least it wouldn’t be so easy for any teenager to walk into a corner shop and buy as much alcohol as they want for them and their friends.

The proliferation of outlets where teenagers can buy booze or alco-pops has to stop.

I want those who grant liquor licences to have greater scope to turn down licences.
If they can see that several dairies selling alcohol, and another off-licence on top of that, all in less than a few kilometres of each other, then licensing authorities need the ability to say - no, that’s only going to cause more social problems.

I’d like to give police more resources to monitor the way liquor outlets comply with the law.
I would like to see the opening hours of all off-licences restricted, for example from 8.00 am to 10.00 pm.

Who needs to buy beer or wine at 3am? Plenty of people are buying alcohol after midnight to continue a binge.

If we made some of these changes then there wouldn’t have been some of the horrific stories we have heard about in the news - such as the alcohol fuelled Auckland men who drove down to their local corner liquor store late at night to rob it and ended up shooting the owner.

It would make a difference, but on its own changing the law would be only one step. It would not be a miracle solution.

What is required is a change in our drinking culture. It is the cultural complexity of drinking that makes regulation of alcohol politically contentious.

We don’t take the steps that need to be taken because political decision-making runs head first into a culture of heavy drinking and of alcohol abuse.

I got attacked in the Dominion for being a wowser by a columnist who raved he simply wanted to just enjoy a glass or two of wine with his meal. That’s what happens when you try to deal with binge drinking and genuine harm.

There are a lot of people who use alcohol responsibly, and they feel that their lifestyle is being criticized and threatened. That’s what makes the issue politically contentious.

Those of us who want to promote responsible alcohol use have to deal with this issue. There is a crucial difference between alcohol and smoking - every cigarette is bad for you. Any use at all is harmful.

But the same is not true of a glass of wine with dinner or a beer at the cricket. Three glasses of wine a day, every day, over a long period, is classed as heavy drinking because over a long period it has harmful health effects.

But that is not the same as binge drinking that is fuelling violence and hospital admissions.
So we need to respond differently to different issues. That means targeted campaigns that raise awareness about the harmful health effects of heavy use on one hand; and targeted rule changes that actively reduce dangerous binge drinking on the other.

What both have in common is that there is a heavy drinking culture in New Zealand. And wanting to change our culture of abuse doesn’t make me a wowser or a party pooper; it makes me someone concerned to reduce crime, injuries and deaths as well as other serious harm to our nation’s health profile.

If we’re going to make an impact, we have to start with binge drinking and dangerous misuse, and we have to address the culture that makes those things acceptable.

Many people who use alcohol don’t abuse it, and therefore changing the culture has to focus where the harm is greatest: If we are going to make an impact on binge drinking and the harm alcohol causes then we have to be prepared to front up to drinking that is risky.
And we have to acknowledge that heavy drinking and binge drinking is widespread.

It’s rare for anyone today to be demonised for wanting to restrict smoking.

But twenty years ago Helen Clark was called every name under the sun for doing so as Minister of Health. A generation ago, people would go to parties and then brag about driving home drunk.

Today, it’s become socially unacceptable. People still do it, but not many people laugh about it any more.

The culture around drink driving has changed, but we have to be clear that it’s a much bigger process than simply changing the law. It takes decades to change social attitudes.
Teenagers are drinking to excess more often and in greater numbers.

And one of the reasons teenagers are getting boozed in harmful ways, and so often, is that the culture of drinking is promoting heavy alcohol use. We are sending out confusing messages to young people.

All-Black’s games and the summer cricket series drip in alcohol promotion. But we act surprised when Black Cap Jesse Ryder or All Black Jimmy Cowan get into trouble when they’re out on the booze.

The community vilifies them, rather than vilifying the alcohol companies who sponsor the games and encourage young New Zealanders to go out and drink to excess.

That’s why I believe one of the most effective changes we could make is to reduce or ban alcohol advertising, particularly at sports games.

The alcohol industry actively markets alcohol to young people. They make their profits by encouraging heavy drinking, and ‘growing’ new drinkers. Currently, $200,000 per day is spent on marketing and advertising alcohol. About half the marketing is spent on sponsorship.

Remember the tobacco industry’s sponsorship of big sporting events like tennis?
Now it is alcohol brands linked alongside major sporting events, for example, the Heineken Tennis Open and any poster of the All Blacks meant for display in a child’s bedroom or school classroom has the Steinlager logo prominently displayed.

The alcohol industry is extremely well resourced and determined to resist any changes that would dent its profits. In my view, all donations to politicians by liquor (or tobacco) companies should be banned, including sponsoring functions.

The liquor industry used to sponsor the annual press gallery party in Parliament House. Journalists themselves found this policy an uncomfortable fit and to their credit now pay for the function themselves or seek their newspaper or media outlet’s support for it.

But you still get bad press by taking on a lot of the alcohol issues like binge drinking. I’ll give you one example.

Six years ago, MPs who are now in government bitterly attacked me because I took steps to increase the excise rate charged on so-called light spirits. These were alcoholic drinks in the range 14 – 23% alcohol by volume.

The evidence showed plainly that the people who were buying them were kids, who bought bottles of cheap liquor on which to get smashed.

It was huge factor in binge drinking. One of principle manufacturers immediately reduced the alcoholic content of his product from 23% to 13.9% - to stay inside the law!
There was, however, a very large decline in the quantities of ‘light alcohol’ drinks sold for sale of around 80 percent. Overall alcohol consumption went down by half a million litres after the excise was increased. I would call that a huge success.

But I am under no illusions about the political cost of the measure. It ran headlong into the booze lobby, and the sneering about nanny state from people who don’t care how many kids kill themselves, until it’s one of their own.

We shouldn’t be under any illusions that changing the law about where to buy alcohol, how you can promote it, who can buy it, and how much it costs, is going to be hard.

Voting on alcohol law in parliament is still seen as a conscience vote. Historically this is because the issue split the major parties, at the time of the prohibition debate and created explosive tensions between prohibitionists and others.

Today, there are no votes in parliament for prohibition.

But everyone professes to be for responsible alcohol consumption. In that case, there should be responsible alcohol laws. Conscience voting in parliament has made alcohol laws incoherent.

Laws get amended in chaos, debates border on the irrational and law-making doesn’t fully take account of health-based interventions, education, and public campaigns to change the way people behave.

The spread of diseases, waiting lists for elective surgery, unemployment or even climate change aren’t treated as conscience votes. Yet alcohol still is. Clearly there needs to be changes in the law surrounding alcohol sale and consumption. But we will only be successful when it is accompanied by a long and targeted marketing campaign.

Alcohol is an addictive drug. It reduces the health status of some of its users. It contributes to premature deaths. We’ve got a long way to go to get people to see alcohol abuse as a public health issue. And therefore we are all affected by the abuse of alcohol.

Alcohol is by far the most damaging drug in the country. The good news is that people who enjoy the many positive features that come with drinking in moderation - enjoying friendships, socialising and having fun - are starting to see that alcohol abuse is a big problem in our communities. Most people understand that we need to change our attitude to heavy drinking.

The fact that we are all here today is a sign that change is already happening.

Anti-science government axes jobs

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

Future growth in the most productive parts of New Zealand’s economy will be reduced because of the Government’s decision to axe forty jobs at AgResearch, Opposition agriculture spokesperson Jim Anderton says.

“Our future prosperity and jobs depend on science and innovation, and the sector where innovation and science makes the most difference in New Zealand is the primary sector.

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

“I thought when the government axed the $700 million Fast Forward primary sector and innovation fund that it was coasting in neutral. But this is actually going backwards.

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

“Farmers won’t carry all the costs on their own back. They need a commitment from government as well.

“Having canned the innovation fund, the loss of jobs announced today is the direct result of the government’s anti-science policies,” Jim Anderton said.

FAI Money should never have been given a Crown guarantee

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

A decision by FAI to stop raising money from the public without the government guarantee shows the company should never have been given a Crown guarantee in the first place, Progressive Party leader and Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.

FAI Money has reportedly written to investors saying the company would no longer be raising money from the public to fund its lending. FAI is owned by Hanover and, through a network of companies, by Mark Hotchin and Eric Watson.

“The Crown guarantee was the only thing that kept FAI Money in the public marketplace,” Jim Anderton said.

“But FAI should not have been in the public marketplace after what happened to Hanover, and the behaviour of Mr Hotchin and Mr Watson.”

Jim Anderton says the Crown guarantee was introduced to make sure there wouldn’t be a run on financial institutions in the difficult global economic conditions of late 2008 and 2009.

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

“The guarantee for FAI never met that guideline. The Treasury says factors that should be taken into account in giving a guarantee include the size of the entity and related party exposure, the business practice of the entity, the ‘good character’ and business acumen of the entity and “The track record of the entity.”

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

“The Crown guarantee was a good policy; but that doesn’t mean everyone should have got it”

Jim Anderton has been raising queries about the Crown guarantee for FAI since early 2009.

In 2008, before the global meltdown and the Crown guarantee, Hanover froze over half a billion of investors’ money.

Kiwis didn’t want Telecom privatised, says ex CEO

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

Former CEO, Theresa Gattung has admitted that New Zealanders would have preferred Telecom to remain in public hands.

“After years of resisting attempts to open up the telecommunications market and fighting every move we made in government to increase competition so the public had a choice, Ms Gattung now confesses that there was nothing in a privatised Telecom for the public anyway,” says Jim Anderton MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader.

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

She said that the SOE model of ‘commercial imperative but public good, sits much more comfortably with the Kiwi psyche.’
“It’s a shame she couldn’t have acknowledged that when she was the CEO of Telecom,” says Jim Anderton.
“The public of New Zealand are still getting the raw end of the deal when it comes to Telecom. Today it’s the failure of the XT network. In 1990 it was Roger Douglas and Richard Prebble selling Telecom for a song to US companies who on-sold it a few years later and walked away with $10 billion tax free.
Telecom was sold in 1990 for $4.25 billion to an American consortium of Ameritech and Bell Atlantic. The two American companies subsequently sold Telecom for $14 billion, making an untaxed capital gain of $10 billion.
“Theresa Gattung calls Telecom ‘a train wreck’. Well the wreck started in 1990. Ms. Gattung didn’t help to fix the wreck. She resisted the Labour Progressive government’s attempts to open the market and regulate Telecom’s monopoly. Despite her resistance we still managed to open the market considerably,” says Jim Anderton.
“Theresa Gattung is trying to re-write history and ignore the fact that Telecom should never have been sold off like the family silver, then a privatised Telecom monopoly allowed to dominate the telecommunications market in New Zealand for over a decade,” says Jim Anderton.

Save men’s help-line

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

Suicide rates are on the decline, but more men than women are still dying. This is not the time to get rid of New Zealand’s only phone counselling service set up to help men, says Jim Anderton MP for Wigram and former minister responsible for the government’s suicide prevention strategy.

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

“When I was the Associate Health Minister in the last Labour-Progressive government, we put considerable funding into public campaigns about depression and suicide prevention. We knew we had to target men deliberately because it was harder to reach them.

“Campaigns fronted by ex-rugby player John Kirwan have been very successful in de-stigmatising mental illness and raising awareness of depression. The fact that a male role model was chosen to front this campaign was deliberate.”

Lifeline runs the national helpline set up for men, but because of a funding crisis caused by the recession, the ‘Mensline’ will close tomorrow. All calls will be diverter to general Lifeline counsellors who are 75 per cent female.

Mensline has been funded by a number of private and public sponsors.

“I call on the Minister of Health to step in and work out how we can keep this line going. I suspect that the money required to restore the service is considerably less than it costs to fund other help lines like Quitline for smokers or the Gambling Helpline,” says Jim Anderton.

“The New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA) puts a price on a life lost when it decides which black spots to fix. The more lives lost at the black spot, the more likely the road will get fixed. The cost of one life lost is reckoned to be about $2.5 million.

“Surely the government can find what is likely to be a fraction of that, to keep this helpline going and potentially save many lives,” says Jim Anderton.

ACC relies on out-dated methods to test injuries

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

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

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

“This seems a clear conflict of interest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fisheries decision shows Fish Act is ‘hopeless’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Animal Welfare Amendment Bill

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

Animal Welfare Amendment Bill
Speech Notes for the House

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

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

Our economic success is based on animal-derived products.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In our markets consumers are becoming more and more demanding.

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

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

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

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

This Bill will make the Animal Welfare Act work better.

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

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

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

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

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

So how does this government intend to police animal welfare?

MAF have exactly 5 full time staff to do animal investigations - plus 7 contractors.
The SPCA have about 100 staff who investigate animal welfare - on whom the government is heavily dependent to monitor breaches of the Animal Welfare Act - without paying anything towards their costs.

In 2008 I gave as Minister of Agriculture (through MAF) a $300,000 one-off grant – but I recognize it was no-where near enough.

When I was minister we set up with the Fast Forward Fund, which was a partnership between the private sector and government to fund research and development.

We had over $700 million in the bank, ready to fund research projects into areas like this.

For example - how do you measure animal welfare? It’s not always easy. Measuring how an animal ‘feels’ about its environment is awkward, at the very least.
In 2006, the chairman of the UK Farm Animal Welfare Council, Professor Christopher Wathes, came to New Zealand and asked - ‘how do we know whether animal welfare standards are being observed?’

When I was Minister I used to get a huge volume of letters into my office about animal welfare issues. It was clear to me then - and it still is today - that we have to be leaders, not only in animal welfare, but in measuring the standards of animal welfare.

We have to be leaders in the right techniques, as well as in the substantive results, of our measuring.

The Fast Forward Fund could have helped to deepen our research into animal welfare - and therefore improve the market position of our animal-based industries.
How is the National government going to find the right tools to measure animal welfare now?

It got rid of Fast Forward and replaced it with the Primary Growth Partnership which to date has funded precisely NO research projects.

And anyway, it only has $25 million in the kitty this year to do so.

I support this Bill because it’s ethically the right thing to do; but I question how this government intends to investigate the inevitable increase in complaints.

How is it going to equip vets, MAF staff or SPCA investigators to know when an animal is being mistreated?

Without that support, I fear this Bill will end up more as window dressing than providing the substance that a high quality animal welfare system in New Zealand will require.

Kiwibank stays in Kiwi market - and makes a profit

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-02-19T16:08:40+13:00

Kiwibank has made a profit during the worst recession in decades by staying in the New Zealand market and refusing to gamble on overseas currencies like the big Australian banks, says MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton.

“This is a remarkable achievement, worth celebrating.”

Kiwibank announced today that it had made a profit of $23.5 million after tax for the six months ended December 31, 2009.

“It’s succeeded because it gets most of its deposits from, and does most of its lending in the New Zealand market,” says Jim Anderton.

“One of its strongest areas is its support for small and medium sized businesses in New Zealand.”

Kiwibank was the only bank to front up at last year’s Parliamentary Banking Inquiry. The inquiry established that the ‘big four’ Australian owned banks did not pass on all of the cut in the OCR (Official cash Rate) to home owners, credit card holders and businesses in New Zealand.

The inquiry also criticised the Australian owned banks for contributing to our volatile exchange rate. Exporters are particularly hurt by sudden and frequent changes in the exchange rate.

“In contrast to Kiwibank, the Australian banks borrowed a lot of money from overseas to fund their lending in New Zealand. This has a significant effect on our exchange rate by holding it up regardless of the real economic circumstances of New Zealand.

“The export sector, including farmers make up roughly 30% of our GDP - about $40 billion per year. But suffer the most from currency instability.

“I would like to see the government provide more capital funding for Kiwibank in order to promote more competition amongst banks and increase the share of local funding for lending.

“The Australian owned banks don’t have a vested interest in strengthening the New Zealand economy. Kiwibank does. It stayed in the New Zealand market, and today its success is our success too,” says Jim Anderton.

ACC turning people away

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-02-18T15:09:34+13:00

Victims of vicious attacks, a 17 year old girl who had an accident at the gym, and many other accident victims, are being turned away by ACC for having non-existent ‘pre-existing conditions’, says MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader, Jim Anderton.

The Minister indicated in Parliament today that he would be willing to look at this issue if a clear pattern emerges.

“There is a clear pattern. He needs to do something now. My electorate office, and the offices of other MPs in Christchurch are inundated with stories of people who have been turned away by ACC after accidents or attacks,” says Jim Anderton.

“Wayne Direen, one of my constituents, was injured in an unprovoked attack in Christchurch, and sustained multiple injuries.

“Initially ACC paid for his treatment, but when his shoulder failed to come right, his GP referred him to an orthopaedic surgeon who recommended surgery. ACC declined to cover the surgery on the basis that the shoulder injury was a ‘pre-existing condition’ – which is clearly ludicrous.

“He had been a keen martial arts student and a rugby league player before the attack, and clearly did not have a long term shoulder problem - until the night he was attacked,” says Jim Anderton.

“Other cases include a businessman with his own cleaning business who fell at work and hurt his knee. He had no trouble with his knee prior to the accident, but again ACC declined to cover surgery on the grounds that he had a pre-existing medical condition.

“A self-employed electrician broke his elbow at work. ACC covered treatment for the bruising but not the broken bone because the break had caused on-going nerve problems which required surgery. He was forced to sell his wife’s car to pay for the operation.

“There are many more cases like this. Some of these people have contacted Nick Smith Minister for ACC, only to be sent away and told to take their case to the District Court. None of my constituents can afford to take this option, nor should they have to. Nick Smith needs to take responsibility and do something to stop this happening,” says Jim Anderton.

Government needs to resource animal welfare

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-02-18T14:07:40+13:00

Read Jim Anderton’s speech in Parliament on the Animal Welfare Bill. Click here.

“Increasing the penalty for cruelty to animals is the right thing to do, but unless you resource investigations and give staff the right tools to measure animal welfare, it’s just window dressing,” says MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton.

The Animal Welfare Amendment Bill had its first reading in Parliament today.

It will increase the maximum penalty for cruelty to animals from three years to five and introduce the new offence of ‘reckless cruelty’ to capture those offenders not covered under existing legislation.

“There are only five full-time staff at the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry whose job it is to investigate animal cruelty, plus seven contractors. They have to cover the whole country. They are already stretched, and rely heavily on one hundred SPCA volunteers to monitor breaches wherever they occur.

“Unless the National-led government is prepared to increase the number of staff and increase the resources to investigate incidents of cruelty, this Bill will unfortunately end up as little more than window dressing.

“There’s no point in increasing the penalty if you don’t have people on the streets and in the fields to investigate the crime.”

“This government has already cut front-line staff in areas like biosecurity. When the Hadda Beetle was found in Auckland recently - it wasn’t found by a biosecurity staffer. It was found by a man walking his dog in an Auckland park.

“Perhaps that same man can monitor breaches of the Animal Welfare Act while he’s at it.”

“The other problem is how do we measure animal cruelty? It’s not easy to measure how an animal feels unless you have industry tested standards.

“When I was Minister we were keen that the Fast Forward Fund of over $700 million would help to fund research into standards and techniques for measuring animal welfare.

“This would have helped us deepen our research into animal welfare. We have to be leaders in the best techniques, not just the substantive results of our measuring. But the National-led government axed the Fast Forward Fund and replaced it with the Primary Growth Partnership which has yet to fund a single research project.”

Equal pay

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-02-18T13:05:19+13:00

Rally of the NZ Federation of Business and Professional Women for Equal Pay

Jim Anderton with other Opposition MPs and rally organisers at the rally at Parliament on Thursday, 18 February 2010.

The New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women should be proud of itself today.

You continue to keep equal pay for women in the spotlight year after year, and one day I am sure your efforts will be rewarded.

The world is changing all the time.

I see that in 1988, you marked Equal Pay Day with a Red Purse.

Now you’ve progressed to a Red Bag, which is bigger than a purse.

I’d like to think that symbolically, this marks the fact that some progress has been made in closing the pay gap between men and women.

Or perhaps it just means we have a lot more data on inequality and now we need a bag to carry it all around.

I’m proud that in government we introduced paid parental leave, and four weeks paid annual leave,

Raised the minimum wage by over 70% or $200 per week, and

Introduced subsidies for pre-school care so that mothers could re-enter the work force.

But I know that there is more to be done.

I have just done a quick check on Public Service chief executive salaries. The facts bear out that you have a good reason to be here today.

While there are 29 chief executives that are men, there is only six that are women. The male CEOs get an average salary package of between $454,166 to $463,332 – while women CEOs are paid almost to the dollar, $100,000 lower per year.

Equal pay - equity and equality in the workplace - is unfortunately still an issue. So too are conditions and attitudes to women in the workplace.

Paid parental leave has helped. But we can do a lot more to make sure that women don’t get the short straw when it comes to pay.

The Obama administration should be applauded for introducing ground-breaking equal pay legislation in the first few days of taking power.

We have to look at why women end up in lower paid situations, and look at changing not just the pay they get, but also the conditions and the flexibility in the work place.

The recommendations of the Pay and Employment Equity Taskforce should be implemented.

But what did the new Minister of Labour, Kate Wilkinson do as soon as National came to power?

She closed the Pay and Employment Equity Unit because, she said “it had completed its work”.

Clearly pay equity is not a priority for this government.

Eliminating the 12% gender pay gap has been put on the back burner.

But you have proved you’re in for the long haul, and we will keep fighting alongside you for equal pay.

Good wishes for the battle.

National has no plan for the economy

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-02-10T13:13:07+13:00

Jim Anderton’s Speech in Parliament on the Prime Minister’s statement

On Monday 20 October 2008, National leader, John Key told a press conference that morning that if National was elected and did “a half decent job” at growing the economy, then increasing GST would not be necessary”.

Well, presumably it has not even done a half decent job. This is the man that used to taunt the previous Labour-Progressive government about what it said it should do.

John Key, who had been overseas all those years working and shuffling money around, speculating against the New Zealand dollar and all the rest of it, he told us we had to keep our word.

He said if National did a half decent job it would not have to increase GST. So presumably it has done a lousy job, why doesn’t it resign now and go back and have another press conference?

John Key said to the Wall Street Journal: We can use this recession to transform the economy to make us stronger so that when the world starts growing again we can be running faster than other countries we compete with.

Running faster? We are actually crawling backwards. That is what has happened.
Mr Key in opposition used to taunt the previous Labour-Progressive government about Australia.

We were stagnant in terms of our research and development last year – worse still the $2000 million Fast Forward fund was cancelled. The government said it would make a leap forwards, a step change.

We found out about the step change at the Select Committee when I asked how much money has been invested in research, science and technology in the most important agricultural and horticultural sectors of the New Zealand economy.

The answer from MAF’s CEO was zero – nothing.

That would be bad if it was a mistake, but when in the House I asked David Carter, the Minister of Agriculture, why the Government had made zero investment in agriculture and horticulture, where we earn 65 percent of our overseas exchange, he said it was part of his plan.

So it was not just a mistake, it was not something that he forgot; he meant not to spend any money.

When we look at the Budget this year, $40 million is to be spent – that is over 2 years so that is $20 million a year – compared with the $700 million we put into the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, which would have built itself up with the private sector and interest to $2000 million.

That is called running when one comes out of a recession. Oh really! How does putting up GST make us run faster than the other countries that we compete with? Well, I can tell members that I was one who opposed GST. That is a matter of record, so no one can taunt me on that.

One of the reasons I did so was that it is the most regressive form of tax known to mankind. Does Mr Key know that the introduction of GST and the halving of the top tax rate that New Zealand introduced – dare I say a Labour Government introduced – in the 1980s - led to the greatest increase of wealth gap between rich and poor in New Zealand’s history.

The top tax rate was 66c in the dollar. It was halved to 33c so the people on the top rate got, and still get, a huge windfall in comparison with what they used to pay.

They got 33c on every dollar over the threshold, and that was a lot of dollars, whereas the poorest people in New Zealand were paying 20c in the dollar and they went down to 15c.
So they got 5c, the richest got 33c, and then they all paid 10 percent GST. That is fair, is it not?

The richest have discretionary income and they do not have to pay it all, whereas the poorest people have to pay all of their money on goods and services. Mr Key is either disingenuous or he thinks we are thick, because he said that is just a small increase in GST.

A small increase – 2.5 percent. If we look at the records, we see that GST income revenue for the government is about $11.55 billion. A 2.5% increase on $11.55 billion is another nearly $2 billion. That is $2000 million. That is just a small increase for Mr Key – he is a slow earner – but that means that every single New Zealander will face an increase on all goods and services they pay for.

That is particularly so for people on low incomes and medium incomes, which represents 75 percent of the country, I might tell members. Seventy-five percent of the country is on around or below the average wage.

Those people will face a $2000 million increase on all the goods and services they pay for. How does that work? And if we are to compensate those people with the $2000 million that we are forcing them to pay, then what is the point.

There is only one point if one is not going to compensate them with the same amount of money, then one cannot spend it.

But no, Mr Key thinks that we can take $2000 million out of the pockets of most New Zealanders, many of whom are below the average wage, and we will compensate them with the same amount of money that we charge them for GST, and that somehow it will all work out on the night.

If one believes that, then one believes in voodoo economics.

The Labour-Progressive Government had a research and development tax credit that would have amounted to about $380 million for science and technology, and we had to fight very hard to get that.

I thought that would be one of the policies that National would be sure to steal. Why would it not? No it cancelled it.

In the speech we heard today, there was talk about improving productivity and the rest of it in the agricultural and horticultural sector. Actually, while we were in government, the agricultural and horticultural had the highest productivity of any sector of the economy as a matter of fact, but it will not have it much longer, because all of that research and development investment has gone.

Here is what John Key said, again, in January 2008. It was a prolific year for John, that year. He stated: “Do you really believe this is as good as it gets for New Zealand? He went on to ask: “Or are you prepared to back yourselves and this country to be greater still?”

Greater still by increasing GST, canning investment in research and technology for the future, and not providing a skill base for tens of thousands of young Kiwis who will make a contribution to Australia, I presume, because that is where they will end up. We used to get hammered for that, but just watch this space as we go through this lot.

John Key’s speech lacks ideas. If one reads the 23 pages of it – I went through it and it is a big ask, I can tell members – one sees that there is not an original idea in it.

If one is looking for a strategic plan for New Zealand to do the sort of stuff he talks about, such as catching up with Australia, he mentions, among other things, rebuilding the Kopu Bridge.

I know that Queensland will be terrified at the thought that we will say that they may well have signed a contract for $100 billion of coal exports to China, but we are building the Kopu Bridge, so they should watch out. I mean is he serious?

While we are going through all this, Australia is up and running, which is the thing that we should have been planning for. We should have had a strategic plan.

I know that late in 2008, if we had won the last election, there would have been meetings of Cabinet over Christmas after that election. I think that the previous Prime Minister would have had meetings at her place over a roast chicken and would have used Christmas Day for an emergency Budget, and we would have had plans to get New Zealand through this and out of it with everything running.

What did we get from this new government?

Those members all went on holiday, and they stayed there.

We were almost wondering if they would ever meet again and whether there would be a Parliament, and one would have thought that everything in the world was hunky-dory, yet the rest of the world was melting down.

This is the result: a no think strategy.

When I was in the Labour government of the day, I used to say that there was one thing worse than a Think Big strategy, and that was a no think strategy. We had that then, and this is it now.

The thing is like Nightmare on Elm Street 3. One would think that someone would have learnt something from what did not work. This did not work.

If it had worked well, then why are we would not be in the problem we are now. If all this had worked well, then why are we in the hole we are in?

We did not go through all the meltdown in the financial sector that people in America went through and all the rest of it, so we had a great chance here.

We had good finances, low public debt, a strong financial balance sheet, and all the rest of it. That is what got us through.

That lot have no plan to deal with the crisis that we face with our own people.

This is the thought that I think I should leave the National members with: 150 relatively unskilled jobs available in a supermarket in South Auckland and 2.500 people queuing up for them.

If that doesn’t register, if those members do not know what that means, then they know nothing about New Zealand.

Plan for economy does not stack up

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-02-09T16:00:29+13:00

The plan for our economy announced by the Government this morning is a huge disappointment, Progressive leader Jim Anderton says.

“National thinks all we need to do to catch up to Australia is increase the price of a loaf of bread, increase the price of a litre of milk, increase the price of a litre of petrol, and put up the price of electricity,” Jim Anderton said.

“This from a prime minister who said before the election, “if National is elected and does a ‘half decent job’ at growing the economy, then increasing GST and the top tax rate will not be necessary.”

“New Zealand needs higher incomes not higher costs.

“The National Government has no plan for jobs, and no plan to increase wages.

“National slashed the R&D tax credit and abolished the two billion dollar Fast Forward fund. When it now says we need more science - those are just words. Its actions tell a different story.

Last year John Key told the Wall Street Journal, “We can use this recession to transform the economy to make us stronger so that when the world starts growing again we can be running faster than other countries we compete with.”

"His plan today will not transform the economy and make us stronger? How does putting up GST make us run faster than countries we compete with?

"Changing the tax system is not economic change. Compare that pathetic response to the Labour-Progressive government’s R&D tax credit of around $350 million, the largest ever company tax cut, a huge programme of personal tax cuts particularly for low to middle income earners and the largest ever investment in science in New Zealand.

“It just doesn’t stack up,” Jim Anderton said in Parliament.

Prisons not for sale in New Zealand

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-02-09T13:00:55+13:00

“The core business of prisons is to keep the community safe and reduce future crime; it is not to make money,” says MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton.

He was talking to prison officers who held a rally at parliament today to protest against the government’s proposal to re-introduce private prisons in New Zealand.

Former Progressive Party MP and Minister of Corrections Matt Robson put a stop to the private sector’s involvement in the management of prisons in 2000. The National-led government is planning to reverse that policy.

“Prison management should never be a viable private business because we don’t want crime to become a growth industry for anyone,” says Jim Anderton.

“The priority must always be to have prisons that keep the community safe. For those offenders who return to society, they must be returned as safer members of our community.

“Australia is learning that its experiment in private prisons might not have been such a good idea.”

Australia has the highest proportion of inmates in private prisons (around 17%) of any other nation. There is no significant evidence to suggest that the performance of privately run prisons is better than publicly run prisons.

An empirical study of one private prison in Queensland concluded that the private sector has failed to deliver on promises of both internal and external reform.

In Victoria, the Metropolitan Women’s prison has been taken back from private operators because of serious deficiencies in the operation.

“This government is determined to go back to the future, and start the Australian experiment all over again in New Zealand.

“Imprisonment is essentially a state responsibility which should not be delegated to the private sector for cost cutting or profit,” said Jim Anderton.

Jim Anderton at the prison officers’ rally at parliament with Labour MPs Clayton Cosgrove (Waimakariri - left of photo) and Grant Robertson (Wellington Central - right of photo).

Condolences for people of Haiti

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-02-09T14:44:18+13:00

House motion of condolence to people of Haiti

Our heart-felt condolences go to the people of Haiti today.

Over the Christmas/ New Year holiday period, we looked on in shock and horror as this fragile and poverty stricken country crumbled in a devastating earthquake.

It seemed so unfair that one of the poorest countries in the world should fall victim to a natural disaster of this magnitude.

Port au Prince is an earthquake prone capital just like Wellington.

But we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars earthquake-proofing our civic buildings.

Haitian buildings look less stable than matchbox houses.

So why was there no solid infrastructure in Haiti?

The simple answer is that Haiti is one of the poorest countries in the world and we are not.

The real tragedy for Haiti is that before the earthquake hit, the government of René Préval had committed itself to a huge program of development.

The international community, led by former US President Bill Clinton, had got behind Haiti.

A huge program was about to begin.

Finally, this country was on the right road for growth after years of dictatorship and corrupt government.

Then the earthquake hit.

Today, the international community - including New Zealand - must pick up that action plan again.

We must listen to the people of Haiti.

It is my heartfelt hope that the government will represent New Zealand and decide to play a role in that recovery phase, no matter how small our part.

We can help decide if Haiti will have a future of growth, or will return to abject poverty.

The decisions the international community make today really matter.

When NGOs and governments go in to build temporary housing and offer shelter to the thousands of homeless, we must make sure that these are built in areas where there is long term economic potential.

Because temporary housing has a habit of becoming permanent.

Not all the building should be in earthquake prone Port au Prince, for example.

Build shelters that can be expanded if the temporary dwellings end up being more permanent.
I would hope also that New Zealand will be a strong voice in the international community for jobs.

Because what the Haitian people need after the immediate relief effort is done, is jobs.

When the international community, NGOs and governments move in to help re-build the roads, the power stations and the buildings - use Haitian labour. Give the people jobs.

By all means, bring in the skilled labour Haiti doesn’t have – but Haiti doesn’t just need ‘doctors without borders’, it needs architects and engineers and accountants without borders.

Use the people of Haiti to build, and give them a living.

New Zealand will do much for the people of Haiti if we advocate for this approach to development right from the beginning.

This has been an unimaginable tragedy for Haiti. The re-building of this country must now be seen as an opportunity for a country and a people who deserve a better future.

Tax matters

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-02-08T12:00:39+13:00

Article for Older & Bolder February 2010

The economist and writer J K Galbraith once sagely remarked that nothing is as conducive to social harmony as the screams of the rich as they pay their taxes. While he may have been exaggerating for effect, there is a kernel of truth in what he said. Whatever we may think about paying our taxes – and I have yet to meet anyone who is enthusiastic about doing so - we all like to feel that our tax system is fair and that all are paying their proper share.

A task force set up by the present National led government has just reported on our tax system and made a number of recommendations and so it is appropriate to ask the question: if those recommendations are followed will we end up with a system which is at least as fair as the one we have now. The answer to that, regrettably, is that we will not, particularly if the taxpayers in question are on modest incomes. That applies to the great majority of those aged over sixty five, over seventy five per cent of whom live on national superannuation as their sole source of income. Those who do rely solely on national superannuation will be only too aware that, thanks to the previous Labour led government, it moves with the average wage and is a percentage of it, but it is by no means a king’s ransom, and that ‘modest’ is an accurate description of it.

The reason why the changes proposed will further widen the gap between most older citizens and New Zealanders generally in the higher income brackets is because it is proposed to reduce the top income tax rate while increasing GST to 15%. There are several reasons why this will have a negative effect on low income New Zealanders.

The first is that income tax is a graduated tax. Those with high incomes pay proportionally more because they can afford to. This is part of what is regarded as fair in the egalitarian society New Zealanders are rightly proud to live in. GST on the other hand is a flat tax. A millionaire pays the same tax on the loaf of bread that they buy as a pensioner on a fixed income.

It is also important to be aware that transaction taxes such as GST are what are known as regressive taxes i.e. because the lower your income the higher the proportion of it you have to devote to the necessities of life you have to buy. The discretionary expenditure of those on lower incomes is reduced when GST goes up and so you can’t adjust the effects of the tax on your budget by buying less of something you don’t need in the way that a wealthy person can.

But most of all it is important to remember that when universal GST was introduced in the nineteen eighties, it was accompanied by a massive reduction in the top tax rate from 66% to 33%. This meant that the wealthy got a major windfall but those on the lowest incomes when this was translated down the progressive tax system got a mere five cents in the dollar relief while having to bear the brunt of the new tax. Those who complain about having to pay too much tax and demand a reduction seem to have forgotten that they have been enjoying the benefit of already having had one for the last two decades.

Ironically one of the justifications of that ‘reform’ was that it was a ‘better way’ of doing things. I didn’t agree with that at the time but there are alternative and better ways of running a tax system which were not canvassed by the current government review group. In my next column I’ll spell out what one of those might be.

Good step forward but more urgency needed

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-02-04T20:11:25+13:00

The National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) scheme is an important step forward for New Zealand’s primary industry export sector but the lack of urgency to get this scheme up and running is worrying, said the opposition spokesperson on agriculture, Jim Anderton today.

“NAIT will ultimately see all livestock in New Zealand tagged as part of a database which traces animals from paddock to plate, a project which I strongly supported as the former Minister of Agriculture. We introduced the initiative in 2008 and would have had it implemented by now – as it needs to be. We had funding in place to develop a world-recognised animal identification and traceability system,” Jim Anderton said.

“NAIT is essential for maintaining international credibility for our food exports. The Labour-Progressive Opposition will be supporting the legislation for traceability and I would certainly like this scheme to have the importance given to it that it requires. The issue has been debated vigorously within the livestock industry for some years.

“David Carter, Minister of Agriculture, has announced that the date for implementation of the scheme will be in 2011 for cattle farmers and a year later for deer farmers. That means it will not be fully up and running in this term of government.

“Those that have opposed NAIT and used delaying tactics have been flying in the face of international reality. Having a scheme such as NAIT is how New Zealand demonstrates that we are one of the world’s leaders in producing high-quality, high-value, safe food.

“The world’s markets are increasingly demanding proof that food systems are of high-quality. Traceability is an important part of that. Consumers want to know where their food comes from, not just from what country, but sometimes even what farm and what particular part of a farm animals come from. NAIT will enable us to do that, on a systematic basis across the whole country. A comprehensive approach is called for.

“I congratulate the meat industry and especially Ian Corney, the NAIT chairman, who has worked with determination to overcome the obstacles to get the scheme accepted by the National government. It is time we saw action on this,” Jim Anderton said.

Cracks start to show after National’s bio-security cuts

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-02-04T20:08:41+13:00

“Last year the government cut at least 54 frontline jobs in biosecurity. This year a small beetle enters New Zealand, and threatens the potato and tomato industries. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to see the link here,” says MP for Wigram and leader of the Progressive Party, Jim Anderton.

At the time, Jim Anderton warned that cuts to staff responsible for preventing diseases and pests from entering New Zealand was false economy and left our borders vulnerable.

Pest like the Hadda Beetle found in Auckland recently can cause serious damage to local farming and horticulture industries.

“The government’s justification for getting rid of these staff last year was that trade and passenger numbers were in decline. It’s true, there has been a decline in the last quarter, but the long term trend over ten years, is definitely up.”

The value of imports per quarter in 1999 for example was just over $6 billion. Now, even with the recent decline, it is about $11 billion. Total monthly arrivals were approximately 240,000 in 1999 and with the recent decline, still remain at about 360,000 per month.

“Trying to save money by playing Russian Roulette on the New Zealand border is worse than false economy; it’s putting our economy at serious risk.”

The Hadda Beetle was found in Auckland’s Dove-Myer Robinson Park and the Auckland Domain.

MAF have reassured farmers and horticulturists, including Kiwifruit, avocado and aubergines growers, that the pests are no longer a threat and have been dealt with.

“The government might have got away with it this time. I hope so for the sake of those farmers. But with 54 less staff at the borders looking out for pests, it’s only a matter of time before we have another incursion.

“Prevention is better than cure. Keep the money and the jobs in biosecurity to stop pests getting in. Then you don’t have to spend more money on trying to eliminate them once they’re here.”

National shows its true colours – health cuts

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-01-22T11:52:31+13:00

A quick chat on the phone, and no more home help for you. This is how 2010 is starting for many elderly New Zealanders across the country, and the National Government couldn’t give a damn, said Wigram MP and Progressive Leader, Jim Anderton.
“Last year I was inundated with calls from elderly people in my electorate who were having their home help cut. Then I predicted that this would be repeated across the country. Unfortunately it looks as though I was right.”

Jim Anderton’s electorate office in Sydenham was receiving 15-20 calls a day from elderly people facing cuts, or concerned people worried about their neighbours.

The Kapiti Observer recently reported the same treatment of elderly people in the Kapiti region. Over forty upset locals have complained to Grey Power over cuts to Capital and Coast District Health Board funded home-help.

Elderly people are assessed over the phone, and then find that their 1-2 hours home-help with cleaning or shopping has been cut.

“Although it’s the District Health Boards making these decisions, whether in Wellington or Christchurch, they are cutting services because resources are limited. That’s a problem for the government, and Tony Ryall as Minister of Health should be doing something about it.”

Until now, elderly people who need it get help with basic domestic and personal activities like vacuuming and showering.

“I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg. If you get a government that promises tax cuts, then you’re going to have less money to spend on essential services, and then there’s only one way to balance the books.

“When my office contacted the Christchurch District Health Board, it was told that ‘families will need to take more responsibility for their elderly parents...If old people can’t go out shopping, there’s always on-line shopping; and if they can’t manage the cleaning they can just clean one room a day with a carpet sweeper.’ Well, I’d like to see my 90 year old constituent who has just had her help cut, carpet sweep the house on her walking frame!

“We need to have a proper public policy debate to work out how we’re going to deal with the health and welfare of the increasing numbers of aging New Zealanders. This shambles is certainly not the way to do it,” Jim Anderton said.

FTT better than increasing GST

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-01-21T11:43:39+13:00

A financial transactions tax is a better option for widening the tax base and reducing income tax than increasing GST, MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton says.

“GST is a regressive tax,” Jim Anderton says.

“GST falls hardest on people who spend most of their income every week - low and middle income earners. For people on fixed incomes, like superannuitants, it’s almost impossible to make up for the price rises they would pay at the shops.

“Instead of increasing GST, the government should look at paying for personal tax cuts by introducing a low financial transactions tax.

“A financial transaction tax could be set at a rate that for most transactions would be similar to the fee people pay for using an ATM, EFT-POS or electronic banking.

“A financial transaction tax is fairer than increasing GST because the majority of financial transactions are made by people with large sums of money to move around.

“Moving more of the tax burden to people who move very large sums of money around in search of speculative gains means people who actually work for a living have to pay less of the total tax share.

“James Tobin, the economist who invented the modern financial transaction tax, points out that it would reduce speculation and volatility in financial markets. After the global financial crisis exposed the irresponsibility of the finance sector, the time is right to take a fresh look at the idea.”

For more about financial transaction tax, see this Guardian newspaper article from December 2009.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/07/tobin-tax-climate-change-investment
And this November 2009 column by Nobel laureate in economics, Paul Krugman, “a financial transactions tax is an idea whose time has come.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/opinion/27krugman.html?_r=1

10 New Year wishes for farming

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2010-01-24T11:40:02+13:00

Column for Canterbury Farmer

It’s looking like a happy new year for dairy farmers; global demand for Fonterra's milk powder has picked up and the payout for 2010 is forecast at $6.05 – the second highest since the co-op was created in 2001; much of the extra cash will go on paying off rural debt. But the primary sector needs the government to get much busier if any recovery is going to last.

So here are my ten top wishes for farming at the start of a new decade:

Water, water, water - stored
Niwa has just confirmed that the first decade of the new millennium has been the hottest on record in New Zealand. That means we’re going to have to get much smarter very soon at storing water.

At the moment the government is only spending a small fraction on water storage - just $700,000 per year through the Community Irrigation Fund. It’s promising to do more. But this issue has been left on the back burner for too long already.

More research, quickly
Unfortunately for farmers, David Carter said in parliament recently that he was ‘adhering to his own strict timetable’ in allocating funds to research and development. That appears to mean doing nothing in 2009 and not much more in 2010 - for example, there’s only $25 million available in the next financial year to fund projects in the new Primary Growth Partnership (this has to be compared to the $700 million allocated by the Labour/Progressive government to the Fast Forward Fund over a ten year lifetime).

I want to see the process speeded up in 2010.

Don’t sell-out our lean meat reputation
Stall-based farming where cows can be kept in boxes for 24 hours a day will undermine New Zealand’s reputation for free-range, healthy meat.

Environment Minister Nick Smith is trying to duck for cover in 2010 and make Environment Canterbury responsible for the final decision on whether to approve the application for this kind of factory farming in the Mackenzie Basin. The government should have the backbone to make the decision itself.

Less photo ops, more action.
2009 was the year of smiles and photo opportunities for the new National government, with John Key ending the year in Copenhagen, all smiles but no progress on climate change. I’d l like to see less photos in 2010, and more action.

Find new ways to tap global markets
Sales on Fonterra’s internet-based trading platform ‘globalDairyTrade’ have just reached $1.36 billion. This is a great use of new technology to tap overseas markets. I hope we see more new ideas like this in 2010.
Farmers deserve affordable dental care too

The cost of basic dental care is a barrier to many people with a cash-flow problem, including farmers. I would like to see a multi-party agreement that affordable dental care become accessible to everyone.

Get rid of the Brash Taskforce
In Don Brash’s entire 150-page ‘2025 Taskforce Report’, farming got just 24 words. Anyone who believes that farming is a ‘sunset industry’ should not be given tax-payers money. Get rid of the Brash Taskforce in 2010.

Change the fishing act
Any Fisheries Minister must have a clear mandate to protect our oceans as a priority, when fish stocks are low or a species is threatened with extinction.

At present, the Act is unclear and that needs to change.

Get the banks back into local communities
Westpac’s recent decision to return to local branches in small communities (closer to farmers) demonstrates the impact Kiwibank has had on banking in New Zealand. I predict the other big banks will follow this path ‘back to the future’ in 2010.

Don’t forget working New Zealanders
Working New Zealanders, including farmers deserve a break too. I want to see more bright ideas in 2010 from this government on how to create jobs, and more support for those with big new ideas on how to trade better with the world.

2010 will be a good year for all of us if we’ve got more jobs and a decent return for honest hard work.

Jim's E-News, Christmas 2009

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-12-17T17:00:16+13:00

I’d like to wish a Happy Christmas and a good new year.

As we head off to spend holiday time with loved ones, and take a break from the pressures of daily life, this will be my last e-newsletter for 2009. It’s been a busy year, and an adjustment for us all to be in opposition. One bad day in government is worth a thousand good ones in opposition because in government you can make decisions which you know will help people and change lives.

Now we don’t have control of the purse strings. But we are making the most of our days in opposition to hold this government to account. It’s not only what the National-led government does that matters - it’s what it doesn’t do. And I don’t see any bright ideas or new initiatives which will create jobs, or support those with big new ideas to help us trade better with the world.

I see indecisive leadership from John Key, budget cuts, cuts to ACC, and looming problems with coalition partners like Act on the extreme right, and the Maori Party which seems hell-bent on being the party of Maori corporations and the affluent elite.

2010 will be a busy year. We will keep the pressure on this government to see more done for ordinary New Zealanders, Maori and Pakeha. We won’t let them get away with sitting back and hoping that ‘she’ll be right’ after a year of recession. New Zealand needs bigger ideas and more guts than a government which so far has come up with one idea; a national cycle pathway.

That’s not good enough after a year in government.

Enjoy the holiday season, and we’ll be back in 2010 ready to hit the ground running.

Here’s a summary of recent news items to give you an idea of what I’ve been doing in parliament and the electorate recently.

Feedback on dental care issues for New Zealanders
After the last e-news went out, I have received a range of communications, letters and emails on ways our dental system could be improved. It is generally agreed that cost is a major barrier for access to ongoing dental care for many people on fixed and low to middle incomes. Within this group, it is especially hard on the elderly, pregnant women, pre-school children and those with large families.

I am working on getting a reasonably accurate estimate of the total costs for New Zealand of the current dental system. This is quite complex but I have well informed contacts in the dental industry willing to help work on solutions.
Once dental care is free, then of course, there would be system changes. In the short-term check-ups would increase, followed by extra treatments. Over a period, the increase in check-ups and care of delayed treatments would result in improved dental health and lower treatments costs. Indeed, this is one of the reasons for making dental care free.

Correspondents are also agreed on the need for a parallel publicity campaign for people of all ages to have regular check-ups and cut down on the consumption of sugar (beverages, sweets, pastry) in favour of vegetables and fruit.

I will be in touch on the dental campaign early in 2010.

Copenhagen - New Zealand could be taking a lead, but it’s not
John Key looked indecisive when he couldn’t decide whether or not to go to Copenhagen. He only decided to go once a hundred other world leaders had bought their tickets. What kind of leadership is that?

It’s as if he accepts his presence is incapable of making any difference to whether or not the conference on climate change is a success or not. But it’s important to be there for the photo-op!

It’s that kind of non-committal attitude that is likely to see the Copenhagen talks end without agreement on clear targets for reducing emissions of carbon. John Key will have to take some responsibility for that.

As prime minister he’s making an art form out of not doing anything much (but always with a smile).

New Zealand could have been at the top table showing we were serious about climate change.

But this half-hearted participation at Copenhagen undermines our reputation for being leaders in this area and producing clean green food.

It didn’t help that John Key went to Copenhagen with a revised ETS (Emission Trading Scheme) which leaves the New Zealand taxpayer out of pocket. Big polluters aren’t paying, ordinary Kiwis are.

Someone has to pay for pollution; under National, Kiwi families will pay. The gap they have left for taxpayers to meet is $110 billion.

That’s $92,000 for each working Kiwi family.

North Shore Mayor gets unfair drubbing by Key’s cheer squad
Mayor Andrew Williams is being given an unfair drubbing by John Key and the media. He has been texting the Prime Minister about the Auckland Super City, and why not? John Key is a North Shore MP. So far, no-one has produced any evidence that these texts are abusive or that they were at an excessively late hour.

The media are showing their bias and are not listening to what Mayor Williams is saying. They are repeating the lines given to them by John Key on timing of text messages and that Mayor Williams messages have been ‘aggressive’. They are ignoring William’s criticisms of the National-ACT legislation for Auckland’s new Super City.

Where are the hard questions to the North Shore MPs, including John Key, on the issues that Andrew Williams wants answers to and is entitled to as Mayor of the North Shore? The media should be following up on that.

Andrew Williams has produced his phone records but it makes no difference. John Key is not being asked to prove his allegations about Williams. That doesn’t seem fair to me.

Andrew Williams is an outspoken mayor – but then all good mayors are outspoken. That’s their job!

He’s just trying to stop unacceptable and unpopular legislation as it’s rushed through the House before people have a chance to understand the real implications.

It is sad to see the very good relations that the Labour-Progressive government had with local government during the past nine years degenerate so quickly – but it is happening in so many areas so fast, that I guess it is par for the course and I predict we will see more of it in 2010.

Intensive dairy farming in the MacKenzie basin - our reputation is at risk
Reputation is everything. Copenhagen hasn’t helped. Neither has the application from three companies in the MacKenzie Basin a few weeks ago to use stall-based farming. This is the kind of farming where cows can be kept in boxes for 24 hours a day, eight months of the year.

When I was Minister of Agriculture in the last Labour-Progressive government, I went to Korea and Japan to advocate for our pastoral farming techniques. There was huge interest in our ability to produce lean meat that was healthier than the high fat content meat produced in Japan and Korea.

Many in those countries know their own meat is unhealthy and there was genuine interest in our approach to natural animal husbandry. There was an acknowledgement that New Zealand creates a high quality healthy product, compared to their own meat.

I saw grain-fed cows in stalls. They were some of the fattest cows I have ever seen. Some of them died of heart attacks. They were so fat, of course, because they get no exercise.

It doesn’t make any sense to casually throw away our clean, free-range, lean meat reputation for the sake of keeping cows in stalls on a few farms in the MacKenzie Basin. It only takes a few negative stories to reach international consumers, and our reputation is at risk.

Farming is a sunset industry? Yeah right....
You can understand why farmers are worried about the future. Stall-based farming is a silly idea. Farmers need good ideas. New pastures, crops, animal species and techniques won't invent themselves, which is why we need a government prepared to invest in research and development.

We currently spend around 1.2 percent of GDP on Research & Development. Our peers like Denmark, however, invest three percent.

When I was Minister of Agriculture in the Labour-Progressive government, I put millions of dollars into research and development in the primary sector.

Pioneering cleaner more cost-effective ways of farming makes sense for our farming sector and for the environment.

Unfortunately within the first few weeks of government John Key and the National party got rid of the Fast Forward Fund and $700 million set aside for  research and development. Since then not one cent of the promised funding has been spent on research and innovation.

I’ll be keeping the pressure on this government in 2010 to put funds into  research and development because if we don’t, New Zealand will miss out. The global population is growing, and food production will continue to be a huge industry. We can’t afford not to be a leader in this market.
Brash hardly mentions farming in his 2025 Report

In Don Brash’s entire 150-page 2025 Taskforce Report, farming got just 24 words.

Back in the eighties, the late David Lange said, "Farming is a sunset industry.” Looks like Don Brash agrees. Why is the National-led government letting Don Brash loose on the economy? Because of a coalition deal with Act.

The bad news is that Don Brash is going to keep getting paid for another few years to come up with yet more destructive and back to the future ideas.

Twenty years ago, politicians in both main parties thought that instead of growing export products, we were going to be the Switzerland of the South Pacific - an economy based on banking, earning a lavish income from financial services.

We can get a glimpse of what might have been by taking a look at Iceland now - a small, isolated country, with a strong primary industry that set out to become a global financial capital. Imports of beautiful luxury cars boomed.

And when those industries all fell over in the recession, which part of the Icelandic economy is still trundling along today? What’s left of its fishing industry.

All we need to do, Dr Brash says, is follow the same prescription of deregulation, speculation and monetary irresponsibility that wrecked Iceland.

There are ministers in this government who agree with that.

But instead of going back to the failed policies of the past, there are some less disruptive things we can try.

First, we need deeper pools of capital, so that each worker is more productive. Workers in capital intensive jobs earn much more. Every Australian job is backed by 1.2 times as much capital as the average job in developed countries. Every job in New Zealand has just 0.7 per cent as much capital.

Second, we need more science, research and innovation.

But after this government axed the Fast Forward Fund which we had set up with $700 million set aside for  research and development, it has spent a year doing nothing except creating another body called the ‘Primary Growth Partnership’. The PGP hasn’t allocated a single cent to  research and development yet, and it doesn’t appear that any will be invested in the near future.

The Minister of Agriculture, David Carter said in parliament recently that he was ‘adhering to his own strict timetable’ for  research and development funding, which appears to be to do nothing and spend nothing on primary sector research and development

We need a culture change to tackle binge drinking
Some people get very defensive when you talk about the need to change our attitudes to binge drinking. Columnist Karl du Fresne accused me and Professor Doug Sellman of being alarmist and presumably making him feel bad about drinking.

But his attack on us was a misguided reaction to what is a well-informed attempt to do something about binge drinking in New Zealand.

His personal drinking habits aren’t under attack and no-one is counting how many glasses of wine he consumes each day. I believe that three glasses of wine every day over many years constitutes heavy drinking. So does the World Health Organisation. Karl doesn’t think so, and that’s his choice.

For the record the 700,000 heavy drinkers Professor Doug Sellman and I referred to represent 25% of the New Zealand population who drink and are over 16 years old, not a percentage of the total population.

It’s ironic that Mr du Fresne’s column came out almost the same week that 300 leaders of the medical profession in New Zealand issued a statement against our heavy drinking culture, and the New Zealand and Australian police launched a massive police operation against alcohol-fuelled crime.

The New Zealand police commissioner Howard Broad said "While legislation and enforcement are key, changing the drinking culture is crucial.” We need a culture change, especially as we head into the holiday season, and commentators like Karl du Fresne have to decide whether they want to help or hinder.

Kiwibank leads big banks back to local services
It’s ironic. Kiwibank was created in part as a response to the monopoly behaviour of the big banks who were abandoning small communities throughout New Zealand. Today, those banks have seen the error of their ways and are returning to a small town near you.

Westpac’s decision to return to boutique style branches in small communities so they can get closer to where customers live, demonstrates the impact Kiwibank has had on banking in New Zealand.

Westpac chief executive George Frazis now says that it was a mistake for his bank to abandon local branches in the 1990s.

Kiwibank reversed this trend by setting up regional branches and bank outlets so that local customers had access to bank services where ever they lived. Westpac now plans to return to a local branch system.

Today, Kiwibank has by far the biggest network of any bank in New Zealand, with more than three hundred branches (at least one hundred more than any other bank) and 650,000 customers. It operates in nearly forty communities where it is the only bank service available.

We knew at the time that it was not only the right thing to do, but that it made business sense to keep banking services close to where people live.

It’s taken Westpac more than ten years to realise this, but at least they deserve credit for reversing the failed policies of the 1990s, and returning to local banking.

It’s a shame that given this re-engagement with the public of New Zealand, Westpac didn’t show up at the Parliamentary Banking Inquiry recently. We would have welcomed their views. Kiwibank was the only bank that fronted.

It’s only a matter of time now before the other banks follow Kiwibank and return to local banking.

Mayor gets unfair drubbing by Key’s cheer squad

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-12-15T14:42:49+13:00

Mayor Andrew Williams is being given an unfair drubbing by the John Key’s media cheer squad, Jim Anderton said today.

“The media are showing their bias and are not listening to what Mayor Williams is saying. They are mindlessly repeating the lines given to them by John Key on timing of text messages and that Mayor Williams has been ‘aggressive’ in his communications to North Shore MPs, including John Key, MP for Helensville. For example, they are ignoring William’s criticisms of the National-ACT legislation for Auckland’s new Super City,” Jim Anderton said.

“Where are the hard questions to the North Shore MPs, including John Key, on the issues that Andrew Williams wants answers to, and is entitled to receive, as Mayor of the North Shore. Unfortunately, that seems all too hard for the National friendly media.

“Andrew Williams has produced his phone records but it makes no difference. John Key is not being asked for his to prove his allegations about Williams. No wonder the PM is so relaxed knowing he can say what he likes to discredit his opposition – and get away with it.

“Andrew Williams is an outspoken mayor – but then all good mayors are outspoken. That’s their job!

“He is a thorn in the side of those who driving the implementation of Auckland as a ‘Super City’ with barely a pause for breath. It is too reminiscent of Roger Douglas’ strategy in the 1980s for my liking. Douglas’ plan was to get unacceptable and unpopular legislation through the House before people understood their real implications.

“It is sad to see the very good relations that the Labour-Progressive government had with local government during the past nine years degenerate so quickly – but it is happening in so many areas so fast, that I guess it is par for the course and I predict we will unfortunately be experiencing a lot more of it in 2010,” Jim Anderton said today.

Parliament right to fix problem for marine farmers

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-12-10T12:54:14+13:00

“Parliament’s select committee was right to amend the Aquaculture Bill so that a co-operative of marine famers can continue to farm shell fish in the Coromandel, as they have been doing since 1983,” says MP for Wigram and Progressive party leader Jim Anderton.

He was referring to the recent decision by Parliament’s primary production select committee to introduce a specific amendment and fix a legal anomaly so that the Coromandel Marine Farmers Association can continue to farm.

The Association represents a co-operative of marine farmers who farm under a single permit. Changes to legislation governing aquaculture in 2004 had created a unique problem in the Coromandel area which has since been stuck in the courts. The Association was initially established in 1983, and subsequently granted a Marine Farming Permit in 1998. Since then the area has been used collectively by marine farmers in the area.

In 1999 Environment Waikato (the regional council) made changes to the marine farming provisions of its coastal plan, and at that time questions were raised as to whether the site had been lawfully authorised.

Since then, the issue has stayed in the courts, making it impossible for the marine farmers to apply for new permits under the 2004 aquaculture legislation.

“The select committee recognised that the validity of the initial permit given over ten years ago could remain an issue for the courts indefinitely, making it impossible for the farmers to apply for a new permit under a new regulatory system.

“I introduced the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill in 2004 to get rid of these sorts of inconsistencies in the system. That was the spirit behind the bill.

“We’re likely to see more marine farms in New Zealand. It’s a growth area for the New Zealand economy and we should be supporting it. My Bill recognised also that commercial aquaculture must always be done in balance with the needs of boaties and other users of our coastal areas. There is a benefit to growing the aquaculture sector; the marine farmers depend on clean high-quality water, which is often an incentive to clean up pollutants coming into the waterways.

“Russell Norman and the Greens have got it wrong when they accuse the select committee of favouring an individual by amending my Bill. There is a general principle here, which is to use the parliamentary system to fix a problem that isn’t being solved any other way, so that these farmers can continue to work,” says Jim Anderton

Our lean meat reputation at risk

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-12-09T17:49:45+13:00

Stall-based farming where cows can be kept in boxes for 24 hours a day, eight months of the year will undermine New Zealand’s reputation for free-range, lean and healthy meat, says Opposition Spokesperson for Agriculture and Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton.

“When I was minister of Agriculture in the last Labour-led government, I went to Korea and Japan to advocate for our pastoral farming techniques.

“There was huge interest in our ability to produce lean meat that was healthier than the high fat content meat produced in Japan and Korea.

“Many in those countries know their own meat is unhealthy and there was genuine interest in our approach to natural animal husbandry”, Jim Anderton said.

“There was an acknowledgement that New Zealand creates a high quality healthy product, compared to their own meat.

“I saw grain-fed cows in stalls. They were some of the fattest cows I have ever seen. Some of them died of heart attacks, they’re so fat and of course they get no exercise.

“It doesn’t make any sense to casually throw away our clean, free-range, lean meat reputation for the sake of keeping cows in stalls on a few farms in the Mackenzie Basin.

“It only takes a few negative stories to reach the international consumers, and our reputation is at risk,” says Jim Anderton.

Three companies in New Zealand have recently sought resource consents for sixteen new dairy farm developments in the Mackenzie Basin, with nearly 18,000 cows to be housed in cubicle stables. Cows would be confined in the stalls for 24 hours a day for eight months of the year.

After a year, government does nothing for R&D

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-12-09T17:49:30+13:00

The Minister of Agriculture, David Carter said in parliament today that he was ‘adhering to his own strict timetable’ which appears to be to do nothing and spend nothing in the first year of National-led government on primary sector research and development, says Opposition Spokesperson for Agriculture, and Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton.

“The National government canned the Fast Forward Fund as soon as it came to power and replaced it with its own Primary Growth Partnership.

“After a year in office they’re not even out of the planning phase,” Jim Anderton said in parliament today.

“Projects were being developed and progress was under way through the ‘Fast Forward’ fund, set up by us the Labour/Progressive government at the time the National party came to power.

“There was already $700 million in the MAF accounts, ready to fund applications.”

$700 million was transferred to the Fast Forward fund in November just before the election in 2008. Organisations like Fonterra, Meat & Wool, Dairy New Zealand and others had committed to match this amount over approximately five years to ten years.

“In this current financial year, not one cent has been paid out for any research and innovation project, and no payment is likely any time soon.

“Under John Key’s leadership, new primary sector research and development has virtually stopped, even though agriculture, horticulture, forestry and fishing are our most important and productive economic resources,” says Jim Anderton.

Kiwibank leads big banks back to local services

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-12-03T15:11:23+13:00

Westpac’s decision to return to boutique style branches in small communities so they can get closer to where customers live, demonstrates the impact Kiwibank has had on banking in New Zealand.

Jim Anderton was instrumental in setting up Kiwibank under a coalition agreement with Labour in 2001, at a time when the big Australian owned banks were abandoning rural and provincial New Zealand as well as local urban communities.

Westpac chief executive George Frazis now says that it was a mistake for his bank to abandon local branches in the 1990s.
Kiwibank reversed this trend by setting up regional branches and bank outlets so that local customers had access to bank services where ever they lived.

Westpac now plans to return to a local branch system. This is a welcome, if belated move from a bank customers viewpoint.

Today, Kiwibank has by far the biggest network of any bank in New Zealand, with more than three hundred branches (at least one hundred more than any other bank) and 650,000 customers. It operates in nearly forty communities where it is the only bank service available.

“We knew at the time that it was not only the right thing to do, but that it made business sense to keep banking services close to where people live,” says MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton.

“It’s taken Westpac more than ten years to realise this, but they deserve credit for reversing the failed policies of the 1990s, and returning to local banking.”

“It’s a shame that given this re-engagement with the public of New Zealand, Westpac didn’t show up at the Parliamentary Banking Inquiry recently. We would have welcomed their views. Kiwibank was the only bank that fronted.”

“It’s only a matter of time now before the other banks follow Kiwibank and return to local banking,” says Jim Anderton.

Key weak on Copenhagen

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-11-30T16:34:27+13:00

John Key’s is being weak and indecisive over whether to go to Copenhagen for a global conference on climate change, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.

“The prime minister is displaying an absence of leadership. He is saying he will only go if the conference is going to be a success. He is therefore accepting his presence is incapable of making any difference to whether it is a success or not.

“This is a failure of leadership. He should accept his share of responsibility for helping to make a difference.

“Instead, the prime minister is making an art form out of not doing anything.

“If he does flip-flop and decide to go, it will only be to make a photo opportunity out of associating himself with a success he has had nothing to do with.

“But his big subsidies for big polluters make him irrelevant anyway.”

Brash calls for return to failed policies of the past

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-11-30T16:33:06+13:00

“It’s like the return of Dracula.”

That’s how Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton is describing Don Brash’s recommendations released today.

“Don Brash and David Caygill were cheerleaders for the asset sales, deep spending cuts and wage cuts that only worsened the income gap with Australia. When they started New Zealand had parity with Australia and when they finished we were thirty per cent behind.

“Now they want to go back to the failed policies of the past.

“It’s not surprising that when Don Brash heads an inquiry at Act’s behest, he comes up with Act’s policies. Act is playing a very helpful footstool role for the government, where it takes all the hits and helps soften up the public for the National Party.

“More asset sales, deep spending cuts, radical policy change, and higher costs for low and middle income households wouldn’t make New Zealand better off.”

Erebus pilots deserve justice after 30 years

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-11-27T15:38:28+13:00

After thirty years, Air New Zealand needs to apologise to the families of the pilots of flight TE 901 who were wrongly blamed for the Mt Erebus crash which claimed the lives of 257 passengers and crew.

This Saturday (28 November) will mark the thirtieth anniversary since the crash.

A Royal Commission of Enquiry in 1980, led by Justice Mahon found that “organisational failure” was to blame for the crash. Justice Mahon also said that in his opinion, Air New Zealand had deliberately set out to put the blame on ‘pilot error’.

At the time, Air New Zealand undermined what became known as the ‘Mahon Report’ and its findings have only recently been formally acknowledged.

Thirty years later, the families of the pilots have never received an apology from Air New Zealand, who not only failed to stand by their own pilots, but actively sought to pass the blame onto the pilots, despite evidence which clearly showed they were not to blame.

Here is what the Mahon Report says: “In my opinion..the single dominant and effective cause of the disaster was the mistake made by those airline officials who programmed the aircraft to fly directly at Mt Erebus and omitted to tell the aircrew. That mistake is directly attributable, not so much to the persons who made it, but to the incompetent administrative airline procedures which made the mistake possible. In my opinion, neither Captain Collins nor First Officer Cassin nor the flight engineers made any error which contributed to the disaster, and were not responsible for its occurrence.”

“It is my hope, and the hope of many New Zealanders, that this injustice will be set right on Saturday, and the families of the pilots of flight TE901 will hear an apology from Air New Zealand,” Jim Anderton said.

Opening the new Rodger Wright Centre

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-11-20T19:00:48+13:00

I am very happy to be here today to witness this blessing, and the opening of the new Rodger Wright premises.

It’s normal practice at a house-warming to bring a present or flowers, and I’m sorry I’ve come empty handed. But giving the wrong present at an opening can be worse than giving nothing at all.

I heard of a new school that opened recently, and a supporter wanted to send flowers for the occasion. The flowers arrived and the staff read the card; it said ‘Rest in Peace.’ The supporter was furious, and he phoned the florist to complain.

After he’d told the florist of the obvious mistake and how angry he was, the florist said: ‘Sir, I’m really sorry for the mistake, but rather than getting angry, you should imagine this; somewhere there is a funeral taking place today, and they have flowers with a note saying, ‘Congratulations on your new location.’

I was pleased to be able to launch the free-to-users, one-for-one Needle Exchange Programme (NEP) in 2004, and it’s wonderful today to know it has made the difference we knew it would.

Most people know that I am strongly anti-drugs. To some, it still seems like a contradiction to be anti-drugs, but to have funded a free needle exchange service to drug users.

But anyone who has watched a loved one use drugs knows that the fear that they are sharing needles is almost as bad as the fear that they are taking dangerous drugs.
You are always anxious that someone you love will not just suffer the after effects of drug use, but that they may pick up HIV or Hepatitis C from sharing needles.

The NEP has very positive results to show. New Zealand has the lowest number of people with the H.I.V. virus in the world, there has been a marked reduction in those with Hepatitis C, and visits to the Accident and Emergency department in Christchurch have declined by 30 per cent for drug using related incidents.

It was the evidence that drove me to introduce the free ‘needle-exchange programme’.

Back in 2002 when I was the minister responsible for drug policy, I received an independent review which told me that the needle exchange programme saved lives, and back then, it was saving $35 million in treatment costs since it had been established.
It would be saving even more today.

The report told me that the programme back then had prevented twenty deaths from AIDS, and reduced by more than 2000 the cases of Hepatitis C and HIV.

When you get a report like that in government, you sit up and take notice.

The report also came up with some strong recommendations. One was a recommendation to remove a legal anomaly around the possession of needles and syringes.

As a result of this report, I took a Bill to parliament in 2004, changing the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Bill did other things too, like bringing in much tougher rules controlling methamphetamines.

It also recommended a law change regarding the possession of needles. The amendment I brought in at the time was a technical one that reversed the onus of proof on a person found with needles in their possession. It was meant to make the needle exchange programme work better.

Tony Ryall - then an opposition MP - called it “political correctness by a liberal Government.”

He’s now the Minister of Health, and has responsibility for the needle exchange programme. I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was sneering about political correctness as a reflex action, rather than because he is genuinely misguided.

But there you have some insight into the battle you have to face if you want to do the right thing to minimise the harm caused by drug use.

Just because an idea is good, and just because it works, doesn’t mean we can take for granted that it will be supported.

We later introduced the one-for-one programme that made needles available freely. I made (and succeeded with) a budget bid for $4 million dollars to fund the programme and I did it as part of the coalition agreement that the Progressive Party had with Labour at the time – for which my Labour colleagues here today deserve thanks for their support.
There were people who sneered at that as liberal political correctness. I can tell you from personal experience that there aren’t many votes in being wise or liberal about drug abuse.

But it was the right thing to do.

I am proud to have contributed to it. I am proud to have played a part in saving many lives.
I am also pleased we have saved many millions of dollars in treatment costs that our heath system would otherwise have incurred.

Most of all I would like to congratulate the people here today who have made such an effort to make this programme a success. And these new premises are evidence of the work you have done.

As a politician, I know that to make a difference to peoples’ lives, more often than not, means going the extra mile. I thank you for your commitment.

I wish we didn’t need this programme. I wish we didn’t have drug use causing the harm it does, wrecking the lives of many people, and wrecking many communities. But it does happen. It will keep happening.

And if we care about vulnerable victims then our responsibility is to reduce the harm to them as much as we can. The needle exchange programme does just that and I continue to support it for that reason.

1000 people die because of heavy drinking each year

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-11-26T15:21:22+13:00

When over 300 leading doctors and nurses and the heads of police in New Zealand and Australia agree that we face an urgent and serious issue with alcohol abuse, then we know we have a problem, says MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton.

He welcomed the release today of a joint statement from New Zealand doctors and nurses, calling for the Law Commission to recommend reducing the marketing and advertising of alcohol; lowering the purchase age; increasing the price of alcohol; reducing the availability of alcohol; and doing more to counter drink-driving.

New Zealand and Australian police commissioners met recently to talk about the culture of binge drinking in both countries, and to agree to a series of crackdowns against alcohol-fueled crime and antisocial behaviour this Christmas.

“This is our chance to do something about binge drinking. The legislation must be changed, and the Law Commission is looking at that right now,” says Jim Anderton.

75% of people who show up in emergency rooms on a Friday or a Saturday night will have injuries related in some way to alcohol. 60% of people arrested by the police are under the influence of alcohol.

“25% of New Zealand drinkers are heavy drinkers. That’s equal to the combined population of both Wellington and Christchurch.

“To put this national crisis into perspective, each year less than ten people die as a result of using the drug commonly known as ‘P’. Twenty people died from swine flu this year.1000 people die from alcohol related problems each year.”

“But it’ll take more than legislation to change our attitude to binge drinking. What we need is a culture change. We need to stop romanticising heavy drinking.

“That’s why I want to see alcohol sponsorship, particularly for sports events banned, and the marketing of alco-pops to our teenagers stopped. Evidence shows that every advertisement seen by a young person (15-24 years) increases the number of drinks they consume by 1%. They become customers for life and the liquor industry banks on it,” says Jim Anderton

National’s third world way to govern

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-11-27T15:18:23+13:00

It’s hypocritical for the National Party to attack those who criticise its dodgy deal on emissions trading, Progressive MP Jim Anderton says.

“National needs to say if it still supports the concept of full and final Treaty settlements.

“It has gone from declaring an unrealistic timeframe for Treaty settlements, its leader declaring ‘The Treaty did not create a partnership’, and Gerry Brownlee calling a Maori member of parliament a ‘black fella’, to now accusing someone else of playing the race card if they oppose National’s deal.

“National has done a grace and favour deal that cannot be justified on its merit. That is a third world way to govern and has no place in New Zealand.

“Last year I raised in Cabinet my concern about re-opening Treaty settlements from the nineties to compensate for loss of value in forests that had been part of a Treaty settlement. My Labour colleagues agreed with me that if we had compensated in that way, we would never be able to achieve final settlement.

“National has now reversed its position. It did so to get a deal with the Maori Party on an emission trading scheme, and now its trying to label as racist anyone who criticises the deal. That is dishonest and comes from a party that has done more than any other party in recent years to whip up racial tensions.”

Examples of Gerry Brownlee’s record on race relations;
“Why is the Government continuing to negotiate with a group that will not accept the Crown’s ownership of the foreshore and seabed?” - In parliament, on Tuesday, May 31, 2005, about negotiations with Ngati Porou:

“National would change the foreshore law to prevent the Maori Land Court hearing customary rights cases and investigate axing the court altogether.” - NZ Herald, 18 April 2005.

“What I think is that there is a large amount of worry – considerable amount of worry among people about where all this is heading and where we fit into it, and much of that is about someone at some point proclaiming what it is to be a New Zealander.” - Agenda, 6 November 2004.

Called John Tamihere ‘black fella’ - 10 February 2004.

‘Full and final’ Waitangi settlements?

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-11-18T16:55:23+13:00

If the government reopens the Treaty settlement with Ngai Tahu because of the ETS, there will never again be any such principle as ‘full and final’ settlements, Progressive MP Jim Anderton says.

“The government is heading down a very damaging path by doing a special deal that revisits the 1990s settlement with Ngai Tahu.

“This issue was raised with the previous government, when Ngai Tahu questioned the effect of an ETS on its Treaty settlement. When Cabinet considered this issue I personally raised the issue of principle that was at stake. If we reopened a settlement because of a subsequent new policy, it would be never-ending. On that basis, Cabinet decided not to reopen the settlement.

“To reopen it now makes a mockery of Treaty settlements.

“Governments make lots of decisions that affect assets like land and forests. It changes tax law, influences exchange rate policy and changes laws around land use, as well as changing environmental legislation, such as emissions.

“If the government has to compensate over ETS, then it has to compensate over any change of policy that might negatively affect valuation.

“I notice no one wants to revisit the settlement when governments make decisions that subsequently increase the value of the asset.

“What the Government is doing is creating a new class of assets that are former Treaty settlement assets, and they would never stop being Treaty assets. They would always be liable for compensation.

“Crown Law received an independent legal opinion that refutes suggestions there was bad faith or any breach of obligation in the settlement. The government should not be exposing the taxpayer to this unlimited risk particularly as a result of an expedient political deal with the Maori Party,” says Jim Anderton.

Does the law support sustainability of our fisheries?

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-11-19T13:52:09+13:00

Speech Notes prepared for Hon Jim Anderton, at A Law, Policy and Science Symposium, Otago University Stadium Centre, Wellington

Has anyone here eaten fish and chips recently?

Because apparently I’m the minister who took the fish out of fish and chips.

The fact that someone could even say that shows you how far we are from having a rational debate about the right of a minister to protect our fishing resource. Last time I looked, there was still fish in my fish and chips.

What I actually did, as Minister of Fisheries was introduce new rules in an effort to save the world's rarest and smallest dolphin from extinction. What I tried to do was pass an amendment to the 1996 Fisheries Act which would have struck the right balance between sustainability and the need to use and fish our oceans. It would have made it clear that the most important part of the minister’s job, on behalf of all New Zealanders, is to protect the sustainability of our fishing resource.

As the law stands today, it remains vague about when a minister can err on the side of caution, and act to protect a species like Orange Roughey (let alone endangered mammals like the Hector and Maui dolphins.)

Without this amendment, the Act bucks international best practice. It makes it almost impossible to come down on the side of sustainability. Because before a minister can do anything, the Act insists that the information and the science prove beyond doubt that a fish stock is at risk of catastrophic depletion.

In reality, the information we get is often incomplete and flawed. It’s very hard to follow the behaviour of a fish stock. It’s an imperfect science.

That’s why internationally, there is consensus that where information is uncertain or flawed, ministers should adopt a precautionary approach, and should not use the uncertainty of the information as a reason for postponing or failing to take measures to protect species.

This lack of clarity in the New Zealand law has allowed the fishing industry to take ministers to court when they come down on the side of protection, because they can claim that the proof is not absolute.

I couldn’t get the support across the House to get this amendment passed. This was a surprise to me, because when it had its first reading in parliament, I seemed to have the support of most political parties. Certainly the comments in the house were positive!

National MP Phil Heatley said he supported the Bill because it “provided a clearer direction to the minister..to take a cautious approach”. But between then and when the Bill was taken to Select Committee, something happened. The National Party, the Maori Party and NZ First all miraculously changed their minds. What happened? I’ll tell you what happened - certain lobby groups in the industry spoke to those MPs. The industry got to them.

And so here we are today, with nothing changed.

It’s ironic; this week, New Zealand was rated by a leading ocean studies journal as “the world’s top performing country for managing its marine and fishery resources.” The same Phil Heatley who back in 2007 allowed the industry to tell him what to do, the same Phil Heatley who made sure the Bill to improve the legislation didn’t make it out of select committee, is now the Fisheries Minister.

He couldn’t wait to tell everyone the good news about this award. What he didn’t say in his press release is that he is responsible, along with others, for the fact that we can’t implement those policies that helped us get the award, because he and others let the industry get to him before we could amend and clarify the law.

I want to make something very clear; commercial fishing is good for New Zealand. It creates jobs, and it creates exports, which help to grow our economy. But it must be done sustainably.

When I was asked to make the decision to close some of the in-shore fisheries to protect the Maui dolphin in particular and also the Hector dolphin, one of the first things I asked was - what effect would this have on the livelihoods of the fishermen affected? I felt that the economic analysis I was presented with wasn’t satisfactory. So I decided to get a full analysis done.

Plenty of people were telling me not to; they said it would only provide ammunition for the fishing industry. But I wanted all of the facts.

The economic analysis showed that 380 jobs would be lost. That to me made the decision agonising. I certainly didn’t go into politics to destroy jobs. And therefore I was very careful to minimise the impact on people affected, by taking as hard a line as I could on which areas would be protected.

In the end, the rules I introduced were not the most severe of the options proposed to me. I had to strike the best achievable balance between fishing activity and the protection of two iconic species.

We ended up with a variety of regional bans and other restrictions on set netting, trawling and drift netting in coastal waters. Set netting was banned around much of the South Island's coast, and there were new trawl restrictions close to shore on the east and south coasts.

On the upper North Island's west coast existing set net bans were extended, and new trawling and drift netting bans were introduced.

We had to do something. Alongside the economic analysis I had, the other piece of advice I was given was that we were facing the imminent extinction of these species of dolphin. At the time there were fewer than 8,000 Hector dolphins, mostly around the South Island. And the North Island Maui's dolphin was estimated to number only around 111 dolphins. It was classified as "nationally critical" by the Department of Conservation.

In all of the discussion about my decision to protect the dolphin I am yet to hear anyone say that it’s a good idea to be blasé about making an entire species - let alone a species of mammal - extinct on our watch.

Instead those who thought I was wrong claimed they’d never seen dolphin in the area of the fishery that I closed. That’s plainly because the number of dolphin has significantly reduced; there are hardly any Maui dolphins left! So of course you’re not going to see, let alone, catch them very often. But you only have to catch one in five years to risk the entire future of the Maui dolphin species.

Therefore, it was shocking to me that the law allowed the industry to use the courts to override my decision to reduce the risks to such an iconic species of mammals - native only in New Zealand.

It’s hard to understand why the fishing industry won’t see that taking a cautious approach in the short term is best for the industry too. We all benefit in the long run, when the resource grows.

That’s why the Act needs amending. It must be clear, so that lawyers and judges can’t fill the gap where there is any uncertainty. While the Act has two purposes - to provide for the utilisation of the oceans, while preserving sustainability, its paramount obligation must be to protect any species of fish or mammal where ever there is a need, even when the information is uncertain or limited.

After the courts overturned parts of my decision to close certain areas to commercial fishing, the industry seemed to think they’d won a victory. Of course this was only an interim decision, and we are still waiting for a final ruling from the High Court. I still hope that commonsense will prevail.

But at the time, I still got a letter from the fishing industry gloating that no dolphin had been recorded as caught during the interim moratorium. The letter was signed off - smugly- “We all make mistakes don’t we Jim...?”

We do all make mistakes - but this was not one of mine. The smug arrogant attitude of the fishing lobby clearly shows in how much peril the dolphins remain.

I had another letter from a commercial fisherman that was written in a different tone. The fisherman wrote to tell me that he had once caught a dolphin, and not declared it. He had felt guilty ever since, and he wanted the minister of fisheries to know that dolphins and other endangered species do end up in the nets of commercial fishermen.

To be fair, the parts of the coast that the judge kept open were areas where the evidence of peril to the dolphin was weakest. On the other hand, I’d already made my decision to exclude from the closure some areas where a case existed for closure to protect the dolphins. I did that because I wanted to reduce the affects of job losses as much as possible.

For that, I was vigorously attacked by sections of the conservation movement. Their attacks were not wholly unjustified because there certainly was some small risk. But in my view it is unacceptable that the law allowed a greater risk to be taken than the one I’d already accepted; because I’d already pushed the boundary back as far as I considered reasonable and balanced.

The policy that the law allows today is a grotesque abdication of parliamentary responsibility and, in my view, was never intended to be the outcome when parliament passed the Act in 1996.
Section 10 of the original Act fails to make it clear that when the information about a fish stock is incomplete, but on balance the evidence points to a looming crisis in stock numbers, the minister must not use that flawed information as a reason to delay or fail to protect that species.

That failure to spell out the priorities clearly has meant that nearly every minister of fisheries in recent history has ended up being taken to court by the industry. The fuzziness around priorities has been a field day for lawyers.

If we decide that our priorities surrounding sustainability of our fisheries are important to us, then parliament should make that policy very clear in the law. The risk of extinction is not a risk we should take by mumbling obfuscation in the statute. Therefore the act needs to make protection from extinction explicit and not leave it to interpretation by the Courts.

This point is obscured by the case a lot of people seem to make that marine mammals should enjoy absolute protection.

Instead we should focus on protecting a mammal from extinction. This is much more clear cut than shielding a species from any potential harm at all.

No-one wants dolphins to be caught and killed and we can pass various rules about fishing practice that ensures that we minimise the dolphin by-catch. It’s reasonable to have a debate about the balance between those rules and the need to enjoy our ocean resource.

It is not reasonable to simplify the issue to a choice between utilisation of the resource on the one hand, or the complete extinction of a species on the other. Not all mammals need absolute protection.

Let me give you the example of sea lions on Auckland Island. I know there are a range of views on the sea lions, and I didn’t have any advice that they were endangered. I became very familiar with these sea lions, because for much of my term as fishing minister, I received postcards from cute little baby sea lions, that read “Dear Jim, please don’t kill my mother”!

I can tell you definitively - my receptionist received no item of correspondence more frequently each morning than these heart-felt pleas, many of them from school children insisting it would be heartless, matricide were I to authorise the slaughter of these defenceless mothers.

I’m sure these postcards were great revenue raisers for sections of the conversation movement, and for NZ Post! I have no doubt the donations poured in. I am a little more doubtful that the recipients of these generous donations were making it clear that the sea lion population in this area was not endangered; in fact it was growing satisfactorily.

On the other hand, the fishing industry does itself few favours. When I was minister we put observers on 4% of all fishing boats. That’s one out of every twenty-five fishing boats. What a coincidence it is that 100% of all reported by-catch of birds, seals or dolphins occurs only on these boats with the observers aboard!

No-one ever reports catching a dolphin, a sea lion, an albatross or any other protected species when they don’t have an observer on-board. Perhaps the fishing industry has a point and these observers are the real threat to endangered species.

Or perhaps there’s another explanation. We’re left today with a situation where the law does not clearly support the sustainability of our fisheries.

The industry should take a good hard look at itself before it takes another minister to court. Because a fish in the sea is a fish in the bank. Many fish are long lived, and if not they are generally prolific breeders. We all benefit from a cautious approach.

My story with the Maui and Hector's dolphins is a good example of why the Fisheries Act continues to need changing. The requirement for the minister to keep allowing fishing to continue until he or she can PROVE beyond doubt that the environment or an entire species is in peril - must go.

We all know that the information gathered about the state of fish stocks is rough and anecdotal, as it was when we were trying to establish exactly how many hector dolphins remain.

The industry pays for much of the research, and it should think twice before it continues to insist that we spend more money on gathering yet more information. If they give us no choice, we might just have to do that.

A minister must be able to take a precautionary position and decide to lean towards the protection of a species where there is a risk. It is our parliamentary obligation to do so.

A judge, as an interpreter of the law, should not be expected to choose between sustainability and utilisation. Sustainability should, in law, be our most important objective in fisheries management. If our fish stocks become unsustainable there will be no fish for the industry - or anyone else - to catch.

This must surely change, and I will continue to fight for that change.

The law stops us saving dolphins

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-11-19T13:50:05+13:00

The Fisheries Act must be amended so that ministers have a clear mandate to protect our oceans as a priority, when fish stocks are low or a species is threatened with extinction, says MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton.

The Act is unclear about when the minister can favour sustainability over commercial use, and act to protect a species like Orange Roughy for example, or endangered mammals like the Hector and Maui dolphins.

“It demands that a minister prove beyond doubt that a species is threatened. But in reality, the information we get is often incomplete and flawed. It’s very hard to follow the behaviour of a fish stock. It’s an imperfect science.

“That’s why internationally, there is consensus that where information is uncertain ministers should adopt a precautionary approach, and protect a species as a priority.”

In 2008 Jim Anderton, then Fisheries Minister, introduced new rules and closed certain areas to commercial fishing in an effort to save the world's rarest and smallest dolphin from extinction - the Maui dolphin. The fishing industry took the government to court because they claimed that the proof was not absolute. The court is still to make a final ruling on the case.

As minister, Jim Anderton introduced a Bill to amend the Act to make it clear that the most important part of the minister’s job, on behalf of all New Zealanders, is to protect the sustainability of our fishing resource.

“I couldn’t get the support across the House to get this amendment passed. National MP Phil Heatley said in parliament that he supported the Bill because it “provided a clearer direction to the minister..to take a cautious approach.

“But between then and when the Bill was taken to Select Committee, the fishing industry got to him, to the Maori Party and to NZ First. Their support was subsequently withdrawn.

“Now that Phil Heatley is the Minister of Fisheries, he is still refusing to do something about this toothless fisheries act. The industry would do well to consider that a fish in the sea is a fish in the bank, and we all benefit when we protect the resources in our oceans,” says Jim Anderton.

Jim Anderton's speech notes at a marine mammals symposium are here.

Jim's E-News, November 2009

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-11-16T15:00:07+13:00

DENTAL CARE ISSUES FOR NEW ZEALANDERS
I am involving myself in a project to raise the profile of, and extend the services for, dental treatment in New Zealand.

The cost of dental treatment is a significant barrier to lifetime dental care and as a result, neglected teeth and gums are a hidden but critical problem for New Zealand’s healthcare system which needs to be urgently addressed.

It is my strongly held view that a high quality, accessible and affordable dental system should be part of the general medical health system in New Zealand. This would provide a public-private partnership which would enable all of our citizens from their earliest years right through to their last, to have their teeth cared for by qualified dental professionals at an affordable cost.

From one end of New Zealand to the other I have been made aware of the importance of this issue to a large number of our citizens, young and old, and it is well beyond time when action rather than words was seen and heard to be taking place.

I would be grateful to hear from you by email, fax or letter about your thoughts on this vital issue.

Contact me here.

ACC IS THE BEST IN THE WORLD - BIKERS RALLY, CHRISTCHURCH
Let’s be clear about one thing; New Zealand has the best accident compensation scheme in the world. It’s not broken, so why try and fix it; and no matter what Nick Smith tries to tell you - it’s not broke. It has reserves of money. It has over $11 billion of reserves, and last year it collected $1 billion more in levies, than it spent on claims.

Bikers are being unfairly targeted – Nick Smith wants them to pay three times as much in ACC levies as they are paying today.

Today motorcyclists are paying about $252. Tomorrow they will be paying $735.

This is outrageous. And it is completely unnecessary - because ACC can pay its bills without making them pay three times as much.

ACC was set up as a no-fault system to be run by a government-owned company so that everyone who has an accident gets looked after, and at a lower cost than overseas.

It was never intended to penalise certain groups that it saw as ‘high risk’ - otherwise where do you stop? If its bikers today, why not old people who are more likely to fall over than anyone else; why not 6 year boys who play rugby and are more likely to get hurt than kids playing chess?

The point of the scheme was to avoid this situation, and draw on the overall resources of the whole community. So we all pay a bit, and no one is disadvantaged. Every one avoids the very large lawyers’ bills and insurance company profits that have to be paid under a private insurance system.

We gave up the right to sue under this system, in return for the fair treatment of injured people.

The National-led government is playing dirty with the figures. It’s insisting that all imagined accidents in the future should be paid right now by people like the bike riders. But this wasn’t what ACC was set up to do. It was always intended to be a ‘pay as you go’ scheme.

That means the levies received in any one year, pay for the accidents in that year. And that system has been working fine - in fact ACC has even managed to put aside significant resources.

The real agenda here, is to set up ACC for a gradual return to a privately run insurance scheme. Scaremongering about costs is just the Trojan horse. And inside the Trojan horse is a bunch of lawyers and foreign insurance companies, licking their lips and looking forward to getting their hands on your levies!

I am entirely opposed to any private scheme. And I totally reject the National government’s attempt to make bikers pay three times as much.

URGENT INQUIRY INTO MONETARY POLICY NOW
We should put party politics aside and come up with a new approach to monetary policy which supports people in New Zealand who produce tradeable goods, rather than those who speculate on property and take the profits off-shore.

The National-led government and its coalition partners refused to take part in the inquiry, with the PM cynically calling it a ‘stunt’ from the opposition parties.

I don’t believe in the “nothing we can do” stance of this government. We could be looking to remove the incentives for those buying investment properties. Banks need to be encouraged to lend to businesses; and we need to review our tax system which at the moment encourages unproductive property investment and discourages investment in the productive tradeable export goods sector.

We need to look at regulating the banking sector so that ordinary New Zealanders don’t pay (in interest rates or hidden bank fees) while the Australian-owned banks make excessive profits.

With the National-led government complacently sitting on the sidelines, New Zealanders will be the losers for it.

To download the banking inquiry report, go here, or get in touch with my office.

BANKING INQUIRY BACKGROUNDER AND FINDINGS
The ‘big four’ Australian banks control nearly 90% of banking assets in New Zealand. The three New Zealand owned banks have 4% of banking assets.

Have the Banks made a profit?
The combined profits of the ‘big four’ Australian owned banks now exceed the combined profits of all other companies listed on the stock exchange NZX 50 series.

In 2008 Banks earned $3.26 billion; the earnings of the NZX 50 were $2.89 billion.

Did the Banks pass on the cut to the Official Cash Rate (OCR)?
The Reserve Bank cut the OCR from its high of 8.25 % in mid 2008, to only 2.5% today.

But the overseas owned banks reduced interest rates by less than the fall in the OCR. 1% margin in interest rates was not passed on to bank customers. 1% extra interest added $787 million to costs for New Zealand businesses; and 1% higher margin on loans added $460 million to the net interest costs to the farming sector.

The biggest cost was in the housing sector: 1% extra interest cost added over $1.6 billion to mortgage repayments.

New Zealand businesses are suffering
In 2009 bank lending for home loans rose about $3.2 billion (to $164.8 billion). Meanwhile business lending fell by about $3 billion (to $78 billion.)

The effects on the farming sector have been negative

Federated Farmers interest rates survey in June 2009 found that farm business overdraft interest rates had fallen an average of 2.68 % since December 2008. Meanwhile the OCR was cut by 4%.

Ordinary New Zealanders had problems paying their mortgages
In five years, Budgeting and Family Support Services has only seen one family lose their house in a mortgage sale. But in the first three months on 2009, fifteen families had already lost their home.

Have the Banks contributed to overseas debt and a housing bubble?
In the last ten years, personal lending has almost doubled, from $60 billion to $105 billion; most of the lending has been for housing.

Home loans now make up 55% of bank lending, up from 35% ten years ago. The banks borrowed more money to fund property price increases which contributed to a rise in overseas debt.

Between 2003 and 2009 net overseas liabilities rose from $100.6 billion to $176.3 billion; that’s a rise from 76.8% of GDP to 98%.

What have the banks got to do with our volatile exchange rate?
High overseas borrowing has impacted on the exchange rate which is subject to high volatility. The export sector makes up roughly 30% of GDP - about $40 billion per year but suffers the most from currency instability which means uncertain returns.

PROGRESSIVE SUBMISSION ON THE LAW COMMISSION PAPER: ‘ALCOHOL IN OUR LIVES’ I am under no illusion about the challenge involved if we are to seriously reduce the harm caused by alcohol. But doing nothing is not an option.

Alcohol is by far the most damaging drug in the country. It causes between $2-$3 billion dollars worth of economic and social harm each year. The personal cost to families and loved ones is incalculable. How can we measure the cost of a family tragedy?

One of the most damaging drugs we face right now is not even illegal; our kids can buy it in the local dairy; they play sports and have it promoted to them all the time; they see it on TV, on billboards and hear about it on the radio.

The abuse of alcohol amongst our young people is on the rise and it’s destroying lives.

I have been working with others like Dr Doug Sellman of the Otago School of Medicine to raise awareness of the damage that alcohol is causing. We have a unique opportunity right now to do something, through the Law Commission’s review of the legislation to do with the drinking age, the availability and the advertising of alcohol.

Did you know that every advertisement seen by a young person increases the number of drinks they consume by 1%. They become customers for life. And people like you end up picking up the pieces.

Currently, $200,000 per day is spent on marketing and advertising alcohol. About half the marketing is spent on sponsorship.

I welcome the Law Commission’s issues paper which gives New Zealanders a unique opportunity to reform the legal framework in which alcohol is sold, advertised and promoted.

It gives us a chance today to do more to protect New Zealanders from the harm caused by the abuse of alcohol.

The Progressive Party submission calls on the Law Commission to do more in its final recommendations to guide law makers on how to further curb alcohol advertising, particularly to the most vulnerable New Zealanders - the young. I would like to see more options put forward by the Law Commission on how we can greatly reduce the availability of alcohol to young people. I have also given my opinions and made comments on every option put forward in the Law Commission’s paper, ‘Alcohol in our Lives’.

For the full submission: go here.

For my speech to the National CAYAD hui, go here.

"Ten things the alcohol industry won't tell you about alcohol"
Alcohol Action are holding their last two last meetings this week with presenter Dr. Doug Sellman.

The meetings are at: CHRISTCHURCH: Art Gallery Theatre, Tuesday 17th November, 7.30-9pm PORIRUA: Helen Smith Community Room, Wednesday 18th November, 7.30-9pm

There is still time to get in a late submissions to the Law Commission.

Use milk payout to farmers to strengthen industry
It's important that the increase in Fonterra's payout to farmers is used to strengthen the industry, and not squandered.

The increased pay out is very timely for a large number of farmers who have been struggling with higher input prices and enormous costs for financing. Interest rates for many farmers have not come down.

But the risk is that the higher payout will lead to higher farm valuations and in turn to yet more farm indebtedness. That's what happened too often when the milk payout reached $7 a kilo. When the price then dropped, it left a lot of farmers under mortgage stress.

Banks should be careful about getting into the same position of lending against valuations based on favourable milk payouts.

The payout shows New Zealand is well positioned as a food producer to continue to earn a living when global conditions are less than favourable.

When payouts increase as much as this one has, the extra earnings need to be used to strengthen the industry, for example by stronger investment in research and development, and strenthening balance sheets to reduce our exposure to rapacious overseas owned banks.

A generation of kids will be lost – New Zealand must do more
Launch of the Mutima Project in Christchurch

16,000 children are dying from hunger every day because food aid is now at its lowest level in twenty years, but the National government remains determined not to use our aid for ‘poverty reduction.

The head of the United Nation’s World Food Programme recently announced that tens of millions of the world’s poor will have their food rations cut or cancelled in the next few weeks because some OECD countries have slashed aid after the financial crisis.

The Mutima project is a volunteer organisation and will send a team of cardiac surgeons to Zambia to perform life-saving heart surgery on young adults.

I commend them for the strength of their personal commitment and their determination to serve. We are a stronger and more caring community because of people like these Christchurch surgeons. Because of them, a hundred young Zambians will have a second chance at life.

About 60% of the Zambian population are living on less than a $1 per day.

But where is the urgency from the National government to save a generation of children who will die from starvation if the world does nothing?

The National government has recently announced that it will abolish the goal of ‘poverty reduction’ for our aid, and replace it with a goal of ‘economic development’.

I am a strong champion of economic development but you can’t do much business development if people don’t have enough to eat or clean water to drink.

I want to see the National government do more about bad governance and corruption in some of the poorest countries and see New Zealand get behind a new international Natural Resource Charter which sets out ‘best practice’ in countries with natural resources like oil (or copper in Zambia), so proceeds of those resources go to the poorest people and don’t end up in the pockets of the corrupt.

For the speech, go here.

Who owns the ASB? Not us.
The ASB has been an Australian owned bank for the last two decades, and it is misleading the public when it pretends to be a ‘Kiwi Bank’.

The ABS is running promotional ads claiming ‘We’ve been a Kiwi Bank since 1847’.

The truth is we don’t really know who owns the ASB. We know it is owned 100% by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA), but who owns the Commonwealth Bank?

It used to be owned by the Federal Government of Australia but it was privatised in stages beginning in 1991.

Almost half of the current owners of the Commonwealth Bank are ‘nominee’ companies.

That means their identities are hidden behind other well-known companies, like the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC).

We don’t really know who owns ASB. All we know for sure is that New Zealand doesn’t.

For the release, go here.

An ‘unfortunate arrangement’
The Auditor General’s findings about Bill English’s accommodation arrangements go significantly further than findings that caused Marion Hobbs and Phillida Bunkle to stand down from ministerial office in 2001. This makes Mr English’s position as finance minister very difficult. I have been in the same position as Mr Key, in having to make a decision on the future of the Minister. A precedent for the right thing to do has been set.

I wrote to the Auditor-General saying Mr English’ arrangements needed scrutiny. The report finds Mr English’s arrangements were not within the rules. The Auditor General’s report states:

The result was that the Crown was renting a property for Mr English from a trust in which he had an interest, and the arrangement was explicitly based on a view that he did not have an interest. Clearly, this was unfortunate.

The report discloses Mr English went to some lengths to arrange his affairs around the accommodation allowance entitlement. That is not a good look for a Minister of Finance.

The Auditor-General’s advice does not even mention other issues that the Prime Minister still needs to consider: that Mr English was giving his Wellington address as his home for the purpose of being a director of a company (incidentally, the company that owns his Dipton investment), but claiming to live in Dipton for the purpose of receiving an accommodation allowance.

A prudent minister might have noticed the contradiction between those two claims.

I have always welcomed the idea of Mr English having his family with him in Wellington. That is not the issue. The question is whether he was right to claim entitlements for doing so. It would not have been in any way objectionable if Mr English had lived in Wellington with his family and claimed an out of town allowance for his occasional trips to Dipton.

For the release, go here.

Urgent inquiry into monetary policy now

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-11-11T10:08:27+13:00

We must put party politics aside and come up with a new approach to monetary policy which supports people in New Zealand who produce tradeable goods, rather than those who speculate on property and take the profits off-shore, says MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader, Jim Anderton.

The Report from the Parliamentary Banking Inquiry was released today.

The inquiry was held by the Progressive Party, The Labour Party and the Greens. The National-led government and its coalition partners refused to take part in the inquiry.

The report proves that the ‘big four’ Australian owned banks did not pass on all of the cut in the OCR (Official cash Rate). The Reserve Bank cut the OCR from its high in mid 2008 of 8.25 per cent, to only 2.5 per cent today. But the banks kept a one per cent margin in interest rates for themselves. One per cent extra interest added $787 million in costs for New Zealand businesses; $460 million extra to the cost of loans in the farming sector; and $1.6 billion to the cost of mortgage repayments.

“This tells us it doesn’t matter what the Reserve Bank does with interest rates; the big Australian-owned banks will do whatever they want. Changing the OCR rate to try and help businesses or home owners during hard times isn’t working.”

“Fifty organisations and individuals made submissions - from the New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association to the Council of Trade Unions. Each of them asked the inquiry to put pressure on the New Zealand parliament and the Reserve Bank to review monetary policy now.

“The government can no longer sit on the side-lines and say ‘there’s nothing we can do’.

“We need to look at how we can remove incentives to invest in property, otherwise we’re headed for another boom and bust cycle in property prices, and another recession. Banks must be encouraged to lend to businesses; and we need to review our tax system which at the moment encourages unproductive property investment and discourages investment in the productive tradeable good export sector.

"We need to look at regulating the banking sector so that ordinary New Zealanders don’t pay (in interest rates or hidden bank fees) while the Australian-owned banks make excessive profits.

“There’s always more we can do. We just need the political will to do it,” says Jim Anderton.

Download the banking inquiry report here. [Pdf, 3.2 Mb]

Visit the banking inquiry website here.

‘Big four’ banks failed farmers in recession year

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-11-16T09:00:50+13:00

It’s official; the ‘big four’ Australian owned banks failed to pass on the Reserve Bank’s cut in interest rates (the Official Cash Rate or the OCR) and farmers, New Zealand businesses and home owners paid heavily during the worst recession this country has seen since the 1930s.

If you’re a farmer, you already know this because this has been a tough year; not only are you a farmer running your own business, but you’re likely to be a home owner too with a mortgage. You know what it felt like personally. Here’s what the numbers looked like for 2009:

The Reserve Bank cut the OCR from its high in mid 2008 of 8.25 per cent, to only 2.5 per cent today. But a one per cent margin in interest rates was not passed on by the big banks to their customers, to farmers, businesses and home owners. The banks kept it for themselves.

One per cent extra interest added $787 million in costs for New Zealand businesses; and $460 million extra to the cost of loans in the farming sector.

The biggest cost was in the housing sector: home owners paid an extra $1.6 billion in mortgage repayments thanks to the banks holding back that one per cent for themselves.

This tells us it doesn’t matter what the Reserve Bank does with interest rates; the big Australian-owned banks will do whatever they want. Changing the OCR rate to try and help businesses or home owners during hard times hasn’t worked.

All New Zealanders should be worried about that. At the moment the banks have every incentive to borrow more money from overseas so that they can keep lending to anyone wanting to invest in property. They don’t care that this will likely kick start another housing boom and increase New Zealand’s debt, and possibly lead to another recession. It’s not their job to care.

It is the job of the government to care.

I was part of the Banking Inquiry, along with my colleagues in the Labour Party and the Greens. The parliamentary parties who weren’t there should be ashamed. It’s not good enough to say ‘there’s nothing we can do’ to support those who trade with the world and are at the whim of volatile exchange rates and high interest rates at the banks.

We have to find new tools and new ways to support exporters -to support people who produce things rather than those who speculate on properties and take their money off-shore. Otherwise our overseas debt will continue to grow and our quality of life will slip while the property investors get rich.

I want to see an urgent multi-party review of monetary policy. And this time, the government must be there, along with the Reserve Bank. The National Party, Act, The Maori Party and United owe it to New Zealanders to look at the ideas that came up during the Banking Inquiry - from Federated Farmers, the Council for Trade Unions, the Manufacturers and Exporters Association and many others.

We need to look at how we can remove incentives to invest in property, and instead encourage banks to lend to businesses. This could mean a review of our tax system which at the moment encourages unproductive property investment and discourages investment in the productive tradeable good export sector.

We need to look at ways of regulating the banking sector so that ordinary New Zealanders don’t pay (in interest rates or hidden bank fees) while the Australian-owned banks make a profit and take the money off-shore.

It will not be good enough for the government to stand on the side-lines next time, and say “There’s nothing we can do”. There’s always more we can do. We just need the political will to do it.

CAYAD conference

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-11-10T12:00:14+13:00

A note from Jim Anderton to the National CAYAD conference
Hine Rupe Marae, Paikea St, Te Araroa, 9 – 11 November 2009

Firstly, I would like to thank my friend and colleague Denis O’Reilly for reading this to you. Just tell him to stick to the script!

I am disappointed not to be with you today, and if it wasn’t for the doctor’s orders, I would be standing with you now, spreading my flu germs, and probably reducing the short term effectiveness of CAYAD across the country because you’d all be sick next week!

Talking of the flu - here’s an interesting fact for you:

Twenty people died in New Zealand from Swine Flu this year.
1000 people in New Zealand die each year from alcohol.

And yet you’d think that swine flu was the biggest epidemic to hit New Zealand in decades.

All of you here today know that the biggest health crisis in New Zealand is actually drug abuse, including and increasingly, alcohol abuse.

I’m going to say more about alcohol in a moment, but first my gratitude goes out to all of you here today - the co-coordinators from each CAYAD site from across the country, and the people and organisations that work so closely with you.

One of the successes of CAYAD is the way in which you have brought communities, the health and education sectors, local government, and many others, together. That is not an easy thing to do. But you have kept everyone focused on the urgency of the problem we face with drugs and alcohol abuse, and you have kept believing that: “We can make a difference”.

This is the first major CAYAD hui that I have missed in many years. By now, you should know how much I respect your work and how proud I am of your dedication achievements over the years.

You are on the front line. You are saving lives everyday. And by doing that you are making this country a better place to live and a more hopeful place for our children to live and grow.

To do this job, you have to have an extraordinary level of skills; you have to be a social worker, a community organiser, a health expert, a politician, a teacher, a leader and a best friend - all in the same day. I know from meeting many of you, that CAYAD has been lucky to attract such highly skilled and committed people.

We know that the social cost to New Zealand of illicit drug use is over $1 billion per year. The cost of alcohol abuse is closer to $3 billion. The personal cost to families and loved ones is incalculable. How can we measure the cost of a family tragedy?

You know as well as I do that one of the most damaging drugs we face right now is not even illegal; our kids can buy it in the local dairy; they play sports and have it promoted to them all the time; they see it on TV, on billboards and hear about it on the radio.

The abuse of alcohol amongst our young people is on the rise and it’s destroying lives.

I have been working with others like Dr Doug Sellman of the Otago School of Medicine to raise awareness of the damage that alcohol is causing. We have a unique opportunity right now to do something, through the Law Commission’s review of the legislation to do with the drinking age, the availability of alcohol and the advertising of alcohol.

Did you know that every advertisement seen by a young person increases the number of drinks they consume by 1%. They become customers for life. And people like you end up picking up the pieces.

Currently, $200,000 per day is spent on marketing and advertising alcohol. About half the marketing is spent on sponsorship.

I would like to see the alcohol sponsorship of sports games banned. It can be done; who sponsors netball these days? New World Supermarkets; and Rothmans cigarettes no longer sponsor cricket - the National Bank does. We might not always like the big Banks, but at least they’re not peddling drugs to our young people!

I know that CAYAD will be active in raising awareness of the problems of alcohol as we review the legislation. Doing nothing is not an option. What we need is a culture change.

All Black’s games and the Black Caps Summer Cricket series drip in alcohol promotion. Yet we act surprised when leading sportsmen like cricketer, Jesse Ryder and rugby star, Jimmy Cowan get into trouble for drinking too much.

I want to see the legal drinking age raised; I would like to see the price of alcohol increased; accessibility, advertising and marketing of alcohol greatly reduced; and drink-driving counter-measures increased.

A final word on ‘P before I let Denis sit down; I want to see the horror of ‘P’ gone from our communities. The truth is the National government’s ban on cold remedies at the chemist isn’t going to make that much difference.

If we’re serious about stopping the flow of methamphetamine and other amphetamine type stimulants, we have to do it at the border. Police and customs officers know that the majority of the main ingredients in ‘P’ come across our borders from countries like China, India and Indonesia.

So it’s a great shame that the National-led government has cut fifty-nine frontline staff at our borders; they could be monitoring more passengers and shipping containers to prevent more ‘P’ ingredients arriving here.

You are dealing with these issues everyday, and you are doing it with a kaupapa Māori approach because too many of our young people who fall victim to drugs are Māori. What you do works.

We all know - its common sense - that drug problems are most serious when young people feel they don't have a future - that's when widespread drug problems take root.

So we must continue to do everything we can to create a future for our young people. After all these years, those of you involved with CAYAD continue to give us hope for the future. I wish you a successful hui, and you will always have my support and respect. Kia ora.

Use milk payout to farmers to strengthen industry

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-11-09T15:00:22+13:00

It's important that the increase in Fonterra's payout to farmers is used to strengthen the industry, and not squandered, Opposition agriculture spokesperson Jim Anderton says.

He is welcoming Fonterra's 95 cent increase in the forecast payout to $6.05 per kilogram of milk solids.

"The increased pay out is very timely for a large number of farmers who have been struggling with higher input prices and enormous costs for financing. Interest rates for many farmers have not come down.”

"But the risk is that the higher payout will lead to higher farm valuations and in turn to yet more farm indebtedness. That's what happened too often when the milk payout reached $7 a kilo. When the price then dropped, it left a lot of farmers under mortgage stress.”

"Banks should be careful about getting into the same position of lending against valuations based on favourable milk payouts.”

"The payout shows New Zealand is well positioned as a food producer to continue to earn a living when global conditions are less than favourable.”

“When payouts increase as much as this one has, the extra earnings need to be used to strengthen the industry, such as stronger investment in research and development, and stronger balance sheets to reduce our exposure to rapacious overseas owned banks," Jim Anderton said.

A generation of kids will be lost - NZ must do more

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-10-29T17:30:34+13:00

16,000 children are dying from hunger every day because food aid is now at its lowest level in twenty years, but the National government remains determined not to use our aid for ‘poverty reduction,” says Progressive leader and MP Jim Anderton.

The head of the United Nation’s World Food Programme recently announced that tens of millions of the world’s poor will have their food rations cut or cancelled in the next few weeks because some OECD countries have slashed aid after the financial crisis.

Jim Anderton was talking at the launch of the Mutima Project in Christchurch tonight.

The Mutima project is a volunteer organisation and will send a team of cardiac surgeons to Zambia to perform life-saving heart surgery on young adults.

“I commend them for the strength of their personal commitment and their determination to serve. We are a stronger and more caring community because of people like these Christchurch surgeons. Because of them, a hundred young Zambians will have a second chance at life.”

About 60% of the Zambian population are living on less than a $1 per day.

“But where is the urgency from the National government to save a generation of children who will die from starvation if the world does nothing?”

The National government has recently announced that it will abolish the goal of ‘poverty reduction’ for our aid, and replace it with a goal of ‘economic development’.

“I am a strong champion of economic development - I used to be Minister of Economic Development. But you can’t do much business development if people don’t have enough to eat or clean water to drink.”

“I also want to see the National government do more about bad governance and corruption in some of the poorest countries.”

“I want to see New Zealand get behind a new international Natural Resource Charter which sets out ‘best practice’ in countries with natural resources like oil (or copper in Zambia), so proceeds of those resources go to the poorest people and don’t end up in the pockets of the corrupt,” says Jim Anderton.

Launch of the Mutima Project

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-10-29T17:30:16+13:00

The official launch of the Mutima Project

29 October 2009, 5.30pm.

Princess Margaret Hospital, Christchurch

SPEECH NOTES

I’m very pleased to be here tonight at the official launch of the Mutima Project.

I am often called on to speak to groups of volunteers who give up their time and use their skills to help other people; whether it’s the Canterbury Coastguard, community volunteers, or cardiac surgeons - (you might actually be my first group of cardiac surgeons).

Each time, I’m struck by the strength of the personal commitment of each of you to serve and help others. We are a stronger and more caring community because of people like you.

The organisations and businesses that have supported the project also deserve our thanks and our praise for being there when you needed them.

I once heard an ad which called on people to volunteer; it said ‘Volunteer! What else are you going to do with a degree in literature?’ You can’t say the same about those of you here tonight; ‘what else are you going to do with a degree in cardiac surgery?’ Well - hopefully a lot. We are here to celebrate that you are choosing to give up your time and use your skills to help the people of Zambia.

I’ve also heard it said that when it comes to community service, if you need something done - give it to the busiest person! I know that many of you are busy professional people, but still, more than 30 of you will make the time to travel to Zambia and carry out 100 heart operations over five years.

Some people spend a life-time volunteering.

I heard a story from a daughter who had just helped her 90-year-old mother through the strain of moving from the family home into a retirement home.

The daughter was trying to tidy up all the arrangements and tactfully said: "Mum, what about Meals on Wheels?" To which her mother replied: "No, dear, I don't think I could volunteer for them anymore.”

Behind the willingness to volunteer is the recognition that there is an urgent problem, and if you don’t do anything, people will suffer or die.

I was sickened the other day to read this statistic:16,000 children are dying from hunger-related illnesses every day on this beautiful planet of ours.

This is a quote from the head of the United Nation’s World Food Programme, who warns that food aid is now at its lowest level in 20 years – even though the need is greater than it has ever been.

Tens of millions of the world's poor will have their food rations cut or cancelled in the next few weeks because rich countries have slashed aid funding as a result of the financial crisis.

The number of hungry people in the world has increased from 150 million to more than one billion - in a single year.

We’re talking about the loss of a generation of children to malnutrition, food riots and political destabilisation. It’s a silent tsunami.

This generation of children will never recover unless we do something.

And yet our newspapers aren’t running headlines telling us about this tragedy; there’s no sense of urgency that we have to keep trying to do something.

As many of you here know - some of this tragedy is playing out in Zambia as we speak.

About 60 % of the Zambian population are reportedly living on less than $1 per day.

One in five adults is affected by HIV.

But it’s not all hopeless. There’s a lot we can do, as a country both through our membership of international organisations, and as individuals.

The Zambian economy has depended on copper mining for many years now.
And yet despite being rich in natural resources, its people have been stuck in extreme poverty.

Political corruption and the bad practice of international mining organisations have played their part.

Today, there is international pressure to see countries like Zambia sign up to a draft Natural Resource Charter. This would guide the actions of governments and international businesses so that the proceeds of natural resources go towards development, not into the pockets of the corrupt.

I would like to see New Zealand get behind this Charter and do everything we can to get the governments and businesses in rich countries and the governments of developing countries to sign up to best practice.

I would like to see New Zealand do more as good global citizens. It’s a great shame that NZAID, our aid agency will now be absorbed back into the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The goal of ‘poverty reduction’ for our aid has been replaced with the goal of ‘economic development’.

I am a strong champion of economic development - I used to be Minister of Economic Development’. But you can’t do much business development if people don’t have enough to eat or clean water to drink, or good quality health care.

We can put pressure on politicians to do the right thing. But what we each decide to do as individuals matters too.

Whether you’re performing heart surgery on a young person in Zambia and giving them a second chance at life; or whether you’re a supporter of the Mutima project - your decision to be part of this project matters.

Thanks to you, a hundred young adult Zambians will have a chance to lead productive and active lives.

Who knows? One of them might become a future leader determined to do more to save that generation of children who are dying right now.

You will have left behind a better functioning hospital system so that in the future Zambian surgeons can perform critical surgery themselve, and projects like Mutima won’t be necessary.

But for today, your work is urgently needed, and I applaud you for your decision to do something to save lives. I wish you the best of luck and I look forward to hearing all about it when you get back.

Who owns the ASB? Not us

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-10-29T16:22:19+13:00

The ASB has been an Australian owned bank for the last two decades, and it is misleading the public when it pretends to be a ‘Kiwi Bank’, says Progressive MP Jim Anderton.

The ABS is running promotional ads claiming ‘We’ve been a Kiwi Bank since 1847.”

“The truth is we don’t really know who owns the ASB. We know it is owned 100% by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA), but who owns the Commonwealth Bank?

“It used to be owned by the Federal Government of Australia but it was privatised in stages beginning in 1991.”

Almost half of the current owners of the Commonwealth Bank are ‘nominee’ companies. That means their identities are hidden behind other well-known companies, like the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC).

“We don’t really know who owns ASB. All we know for sure is that New Zealand doesn’t.”

In 1989, the ASB Bank Community Trust sold 75% of the shares to The Commonwealth Bank of Australia. In 2000 the CBA bought the remaining 25% of ASB shares from the Trust.

Since 2000 the ABS has been 100% owned by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia.

“We do however have a New Zealand owned banking network owned by all New Zealanders - and it’s called ‘Kiwibank’.”

“The Aussies are welcome to start their own ‘Aussiebank’ but they shouldn’t try to pinch ours,” says Jim Anderton.

An ‘unfortunate’ arrangement

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-10-28T16:45:56+13:00

The Auditor General’s findings about Bill English’s accommodation arrangements go significantly further than findings that caused Marion Hobbs and Phillida Bunkle to stand down from ministerial office in 2001, Progressive MP Jim Anderton says.

“This makes Mr English’s position as finance minister very difficult,” Jim Anderton says.

“I have been in the same position as Mr Key is now in, in having to make a decision on the future of the Minister. A precedent for the right thing to do has been set.”

Jim Anderton wrote to the Auditor-General saying Mr English’ arrangements needed scrutiny. The report finds Mr English’s arrangements were not within the rules. The Auditor General’s report states:

The result was that the Crown was renting a property for Mr English from a trust in which he had an interest, and the arrangement was explicitly based on a view that he did not have an interest. Clearly, this was unfortunate.

“The report discloses Mr English went to some lengths to arrange his affairs around the accommodation allowance entitlement. That is not a good look for a Minister of Finance.

“The Auditor-General’s advice does not even mention other issues that the Prime Minister still needs to consider: that Mr English was giving his Wellington address as his home for the purpose of being a director of a company (incidentally, the company that owns his Dipton investment), but claiming to live in Dipton for the purpose of receiving an accommodation allowance.

“A prudent minister might have noticed the contradiction between those two claims.

“I have always welcomed the idea of Mr English having his family with him in Wellington. That is not the issue. The question is whether he was right to claim entitlements for doing so.

“It would not have been in any way objectionable if Mr English had lived in Wellington with his family and claimed an out of town allowance for his occasional trips to Dipton,”
Jim Anderton said.

Nick Smith stigmatises families of suicide victims

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-10-15T13:50:30+13:00

Minister of ACC, Nick Smith says it was ‘a mistake and wrong’ for the last Labour-led government to support the families of suicide victims through ACC.

“Nick Smith should have the courage to say this directly to the families of suicide victims. It is yet another cowardly and insensitive comment from a Minister who is determined to further stigmatise these families,” says MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton.

Nick Smith apologised in parliament today for his comments on TVNZ News last night where he said that the terminally ill might as well ‘throw themselves under a train’ to get the same treatment for their own families as is available for the bereaved families of suicide victims.

“If the children or loved ones of a suicide victim don’t get our support through ACC, then where do they get it from? Is the Minister saying that they don’t deserve our support? Or is he saying that they should go on a sickness benefit?”

“When he said yesterday that the government’s ‘objective is to secure the long-term future of ACC as an efficient and fair 24/7, no-fault insurance scheme for all New Zealanders’, he clearly did not mean the families of suicide victims. He is effectively victimising these most vulnerable of New Zealanders.”

As the Minister in charge of suicide prevention programs in the last Labour/Progressive government, Jim Anderton introduced a program of support for families after a suicide (Postvention). This provided urgent counselling where needed to families, and victim support for those affected.

Nick Smith claims that it is necessary to cut support to the families of suicide victims because ACC has a huge deficit. He said if someone with a family committed suicide, that family could have been given almost $1 million in compensation over time.

“Yet the cost for ACC to give support to a family of three children on an average wage is less than $210,000 over five years. With approximately 350 claims per year, that is about $7 millions per year to all families of suicide victims who make an ACC claim.”

“That is a small cost to pay out of what Nick Smith claims is a $2 billion shortfall annually, to help some of the most vulnerable families in our community.”

Research and development: from Fast Forward to slow and slower...

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-10-20T09:04:54+13:00

Column for Canterbury Farmer

One of the strangest moments in the last election campaign was when the National party announced that it would abolish the Fast Forward Fund, and cut tax incentives for our most innovative businesses prepared to invest in research and development in agriculture.

Unfortunately the National-led government has kept that promise, and we're now facing a crisis in funding for research in the primary production sector.

Fast Forward came out of the 20/20 Summit I hosted as Minister of Agriculture at the end of 2007. A key recommendation of the gathering was to create a dedicated fund to finance research and development. The goal was to take each stage of production, from the production of the raw product on farms, to manufacturing and ultimately to markets here and overseas, and to add value at each stage.

In 2008 we announced the launch of the Fast Forward Fund with the intention of using it to catapult the New Zealand economy into the future.

We had a model where the funding was shared between government and the private sector. The Crown made a commitment to put $700 million up front into the fund which was matched by a similar amount from the private sector.

We had a joint Crown/private sector board to oversee the investment and the allocation of funds which was to have a life span of at least a decade to give certainty over a decent period of time.

The Fast Forward was placed under the management of three independent ‘Guardians’ who would invest it. Treasury and MAF estimated that the Fund plus interest would reach $2000M over a ten-year period.
The National-led Government cancelled the Fund.

The Fast Forward board had already held four meetings and was developing its overall strategy and the principles to be used to oversee the allocation to programmes and projects. Suddenly it was stopped and the initial investment from the government of $700 million plus $15 million of interest that it had earned, less the costs of getting it established, was returned.
Minister of Agriculture David Carter has replaced Fast Forward with the 'Primary Growth Partnership’ (PGP) which is apparently now 'up and running' with $30 million to spend in its first year and a total of $160M over the next three years.

Hon. Carter has yet to tell me how many research project proposals the PGP has received, nearly twelve months after Fast Forward was already working.

This is a huge opportunity lost. We are already facing a crisis in research and development. Meat & Wool New Zealand has announced it will stop any wool-related activities because of the loss of the wool levy in the recent referendum. This means there is no more money to fund the research and development of our wool based products.

The recently established Government Taskforce needs to give hope to the wool sector that there is a plan to increase the demand for our wool with a lift of prices for the producers, particularly for the coarse wool sector where research is so badly needed. Companies, like Ice Breaker using fine wool merino are already world leaders when it comes to making the most of research and development to expand their markets.

Finally, though, what the primary production sector really needs is not government taskforces; it needs money to fund research and development, and it needs the certainly of knowing that funds will not be taken away arbitrarily by politicians or government departments.

Iconic sports should be free to air

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-10-14T13:02:54+13:00

The government now reportedly has $8 million on the table to help TVNZ, Maori Television Service (MTS) and TV3 bid for the right to screen the Rugby World Cup, says MP for Wigram and Progressive leader Jim Anderton.

“Does it now accept the principal that all iconic sporting events should be free-to-air?”

Te Puni Kokiri (the Ministry for Maori Development) has funded the MTS bid by $3 million. The Government has allegedly freed up $5 million for a TVNZ and TV3 bid.

“$8 million would buy a lot of coverage for free-to-air sporting events.”

“We could buy the rights to screen the up-coming game between our national soccer team, the All-Whites who will play Bahrain to see if they qualify for the soccer World Cup next year in South Africa; as well as the rights for TVNZ to screen next year’s Commonwealth Games in Delhi.”

For the last forty yearsTVNZ has screened the Commonwealth Games.

“When TVNZ announced last month that it was seeking to offload its rights to broadcast the Commonwealth Games, the National Government refused to get involved, saying the arrangement was a commercial contract between TVNZ and Sky.”

“At the time Jonathan Coleman said the public could no longer expect major sporting events to be provided free on television.”

“What’s changed?”

Alcohol abuse more serious than methamphetamine

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-10-08T16:19:19+13:00

The abuse of alcohol is by far and away the most serious drug abuse we face in New Zealand, the former Associate Minister of Health in charge of the government’s drug policy, Jim Anderton said today.

“It is more serious than the abuse of methamphetamine, even though it is a deadly serious and unacceptable drug.

“The Prime Minister and his government’s first priority to prevent drug abuse in New Zealand is to take up the challenge posed by incidents of heavy drinking, which is now deeply imbedded in our culture, across all ages.

“The economic costs, the health costs, the costs to our justice and corrections systems and lost time off work as well as road deaths and serious injuries are calculated by reputable economists to cost New Zealand between two to three billion dollars a year,” Jim Anderton said.

“The National-led government has announced today that it is taking cold and flu medicines containing pseudoephedrine off our pharmacy counters. This means that those acting illegally have succeeded in removing our most effective cold and flu treatments while the majority of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine is illegally imported across our borders and not sold over pharmacy counters.

“Simon Power’s statement to the Hospitality Association, as the Minister of Justice and Commerce last Wednesday, that “I tend to view liquor law reform through a wide angle lens” does not fill me with confidence that the Law Commission’s recent “Alcohol in our Lives” Discussion Document will bring about the liquor law reform that New Zealand needs.

“The easy availability of alcohol, the lowering of the drinking age, and the influence of the alcohol industry on alcohol-control policy has turned our drinking culture into a pathological problem.

“The police know that this is an urgent issue. Between half and three-quarters of all police work is associated in some way with alcohol abuse.

“Sixty per cent of people arrested by the police are under the influence of alcohol at the time they commit the offence for which they are arrested. Alcohol abuse affects the community and people other than the drinker; forty per cent of all deaths and almost half of all other injuries from alcohol-related car crashes impact on those who have not been drinking at all.

”I call on the government to get serious about alcohol abuse.

“Reduce the availability of alcohol because research around the world has shown that there is a direct link between the availability of alcohol and the level of harm caused by alcohol. Increase the minimum age for buying alcohol to twenty years old; help communities reduce the proliferation of liquor retailers; and reduce the advertising of alcohol especially at sporting events,” Jim Anderton said today in Timaru

Jim Anderson is chairing a meeting tonight in Tïmaru: "Ten things the alcohol industry won't tell you about alcohol”. This meeting is one in a series of thirty eight being held around New Zealand, organised by Alcohol Action, with the presentation by Dr Doug Sellman, Director of the National Addiction Centre, and Professor of Psychiatry and Addiction Medicine at the University of Otago.

Water issues in Canterbury

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-09-20T16:39:45+12:00

Any farmer knows that water is one of their most valuable resources.
There is an alarming projection which shows that 3 billion people – half the world’s current population – could face a shortage of clean water by 2080 because of climate change. The amount of water needed by 2050 could be 50-90% higher than current use.
Farmers in Canterbury know about water shortage. In the seven years to 2006 there was a 49% increase in water allocated for irrigation in Canterbury. But the real issue for us in Canterbury is the storage of water. If we store it, we’ll have enough for everyone.
A great example of this is the Waimea dam in the Nelson region. I was there for the opening of this dam. It’s small enough not to offend anyone. It’s pleasantly tucked into the hill. But it services at least seventy farmers in the area. That’s seventy farms that won’t have to be sold because of drought and low productively.
The downstream effects on the communities around those farms are huge. Everyone benefits if these farms can keep producing. Jobs on farms are not lost. In fact more jobs are created. The increase in the local population means that schools stay open, banks and petrol stations continue to service the local area. And the environmentalists are happy because a small dam like this has positive effects on river flows. The natural environment is protected and the life of the river is sustained.
The alternative was a drought every five years which could mean farm closures and all the destruction and grief that closure causes families and communities.
Now the farmers serviced by the Waimea dam can expect a drought once in twenty years, which is survivable.
Most farmers can live with that.
What was most interesting was that the whole community supported the Waimea dam project. Because it was small, the environmental damage was virtually nil, so it was much easier to get different community groups on board with the project. Forest and Bird for example, and local institutions understood the importance of irrigation to farmers, and the difference storage of water could make. Keeping it small meant that they could support the project.
I believe this is a model for the whole of the Canterbury region.
Larger dam schemes are much harder to get buy-in from the community because the actual or perceived environmental effects are greater. Keep it small, and we have a chance to do something about water shortage.
I would rather see ten local dams built instead of one big one.
I’m pleased to see that our local mayors and chief executives are developing a Water Management Strategy that sets out a twenty year plan for water resources in Canterbury. I hope they look at the Waimea example and see the importance of storage. Sometimes the solutions are staring you in the face.

We have a drinking problem

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-10-05T16:14:00+13:00

There is a culture of romanticising heavy drinking in New Zealand. All-Blacks games and the Black Caps summer cricket series drip in alcohol promotion. But we act surprised when cricketer Jesse Ryder and rugby star Jimmy Cowan get into trouble for drinking too much. The community vilifies them, rather than the alcohol companies who sponsor the games and encourage young New Zealanders to go out do exactly that - drink to excess.

A leading alcohol researcher in the United Kingdom said that “Nations, like people, can develop a pathological pattern of alcohol misuse.” That’s what has happened in New Zealand. We already had a drinking culture, but the easy availability of alcohol, the lowering of the drinking age, and the influence of the alcohol industry on alcohol-control policy has turned that culture into a pathological problem.

We shouldn’t be surprised that teenage girls have drinking problems. They see the ads, and then they walk into dairies, local supermarkets and neighborhood liquor stores where they can buy alcohol anytime they want. No wonder our young teens have a booze problem

It’s hard to say it out loud: “We have a problem with alcohol abuse”. There are a lot of people who use alcohol responsibly, and they feel like their lifestyle is being criticised. But their drinking habits are not an issue. The culture of tolerating heavy drinking is the problem.

The police know all about it. While most of us are sleeping peacefully in our beds, they’re dealing with the violence on the streets; the doctors and nurses are patching people up in our hospitals and our councils clean up the mess before we get up in the morning.

So in case you slept through the drunken chaos during any weekend, here are some facts:

Between half and three-quarters of all police work is associated in some way with alcohol abuse.
Sixty per cent of people arrested by the police are under the influence of alcohol at the time they commit the offence for which they are arrested.
Researchers estimate that alcohol causes $2,400 million of harm each year.
Alcohol abuse affects the community and people other than the drinker; forty per cent of all deaths and almost half of all other injuries from alcohol-related car crashes are to ‘innocent victims’ who were not drinking.

The consequences of harmful drinking affect us all.

The next question is what we should do about it.

We need to reduce the availability of alcohol because research around the world has shown that there is a direct link between the availability of alcohol and the level of harm caused by alcohol.

We should increase the minimum age for buying alcohol to twenty years.

More needs to be done to help communities reduce the proliferation of liquor retailers.

The advertising of alcohol should be reduced, especially on television during the coverage of sport.

Give police much stronger tools for making pubs comply with the law. At the moment if they have serious concerns about license breaches, they have to wait until a license comes up for renewal. They should be able to do something straight away.

Most disturbing, is the continued promotion of alcohol to young people who don’t have as many choices available to them, are more likely to succumb to peer pressure and are susceptible to advertising.

We recognise there’s a problem, but then we put the fox in charge of the henhouse and expect the alcohol industry to police themselves and come up with the right policies to control alcohol consumption in our communities.

The good news is that people who enjoy the many positive features that come with drinking in moderation - enjoying friendships, socialising and having fun - are starting to see that there is a big problem in our communities, and that we need a major culture change in our attitude to heavy drinking. That means we all have to do something, because we are all affected by the abuse of alcohol.

For more information on the “Ten things the alcohol industry won’t tell you about alcohol” and the timetable for the 38 meetings throughout New Zealand, go to www.alcoholaction.co.nz .

I am chairing the meeting in Timaru on the 8th October at Sopheze on the Bay, at 7.30pm. Get to one of the meetings if you can.

The Progressive Party will be writing a submission on New Zealand’s alcohol policies to the Law Commission’s report on alcohol. If you would like to do this too, post a submission to Liquor Project Co-ordinator, Law Commission, PO Box 2509, Wellington, by Friday 30th October 2009.

Coastguards prepare for their busy season.

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-09-25T18:01:48+12:00

“On an average day the Coastguard around New Zealand make ten rescues. That’s more than 3500 incidents a year, and over 5000 people a year who might not be with us today if it wasn’t for these volunteers,” says Progressive leader and MP for Wigram, Jim Anderton.

“These are just ordinary people with families and jobs, doing extraordinary things every day. And they do it for nothing. That kind of service is humbling.”

Jim Anderton was giving the key note speech at the annual Conference of the New Zealand Coastguard Association in Christchurch. He and his wife Carol are the official Patrons for the Canterbury Coastguard.

“It's easy for people to take this service for granted. But what would we do if we didn't have people around who give so much to helping out others?

“There are still New Zealand boaties out there who think they are indestructible; they don’t wear life jackets or carry rescue beacons. I know that many Coastguard volunteers would like to see more funding to spend on education, and there is a strong demand in the community for Coastguard boating education.

“That’s why I was very pleased last year to advocate in Cabinet with colleagues like Annette King, that a levy from petrol and diesel should be used to fund the work of the Coastguard service.

“They need all the funding they can get, and it doesn’t make sense for boaties filling their boats with fuel to pay a road tax.”

The Land Transport Management Act now allows for some of the fuel excise paid by boaties to be used to fund specified safety activities, most notably search and rescue.

“There are more than 2,500 of you across New Zealand. You are dedicated active volunteers who give over 300,000 hours of your time for free every year, and you are all heroes,” Jim Anderton said.

“Your service is an inspiration. New Zealanders owe you a debt of gratitude, and I wish you a successful and safe summer,” says Jim Anderton.

Coastguard conference 2009

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-09-25T18:00:07+12:00

Opening speech to the Royal New Zealand Coastguard Annual Conference 2009

As patrons of Canterbury Coastguard, Carole and I have much pleasure in being here for the annual conference of the NZ Coastguard.

I’ve been the Patron for the Canterbury Coastguard for a number of years. Each time I meet with you I’m struck again by your dedication and personal commitment to serve your fellow New Zealanders.

It’s people like you who keep voluntary organisations alive and running. This is not unimportant as your organisation also happens to save lives.

I’m sure you look at the way parliament is portrayed in the media and wonder if all politicians are driven by a similar desire to serve. I am reminded, in this regard, of a story I heard recently.

A priest was being honoured by the local coastguard at his retirement dinner after 25 years in the parish. The local MP who was also a member of his parish had been chosen to make the presentation and give a speech at the dinner.

The politician was delayed, so the priest decided to say his own few words while they waited. He said: "I got my first impression of this town from the first confession I heard here. I thought I had been assigned to a terrible place. The very first person who entered my confessional told me he had stolen money from some old, retired pensioners and when questioned by the police, he was able to lie his way out of it. He had also stolen money from his parents, embezzled from his former employer, and had an affair with his former boss's wife. I was appalled,” said the priest.

“But as the days went on I came to learn that most of the people were not like that at all and I had, indeed, come to a fine parish full of good and loving people, with a dedicated Coastguard service of the highest quality.”

Just as the priest finished his talk, the MP arrived full of apologies for being late. He immediately began to make the presentation by starting his speech.

"I'll never forget the first day our parish priest arrived," said the politician. "In fact, I had the honour of being the first person to go to him for confession.....”

It’s inspiring to read about some of your members who won the Coastguard National Awards in 2008, and to see some of the 2009 nominees here tonight.

It's easy for us to take your service for granted. But what would we do if we didn't have people around who give so much to helping others?

I’d like to pay tribute to the 2008 Award winners: Richard Packham from Rotorua; Chris Henshaw from Mana; and Rosie Musters from Nelson, and to the 2009 nominees.

All of you here are heroes. There are more than 2,500 members of the Coastguard across New Zealand. You are dedicated active volunteers who freely give over 300,000 hours of your time every year. You are ordinary people like the rest of us, holding down jobs and bringing up your families, but in your spare time, you do extraordinary things.

Rescuing people and keeping us safe in and on the water is not easy. I know you work long and irregular hours, you witness traumatic events, and each time you go out you put your own safety at risk to go to the aid often, of a total stranger.

These risks were brought home to me in March this year, when five crew members from the Coastguard vessel Tutukaka were injured when their rescue vessel struck rocks in bad weather.

You risk your lives all the time.

That’s why I was very pleased last year to advocate in Cabinet with colleagues like Annette King, that a levy from petrol and diesel used by recreational boaties should help fund the work of the Coastguard.

You need all the funding you can get, and it doesn’t make sense for boaties filling their boats with fuel to pay a road tax.

The hours that you spend helping to raise money; the effort that goes in to getting a boat like the new rescue vessel in Gisborne; the care and attention you have to give to administration; your commitment to having two people in your operations room 24 hours a day ... it all adds up.

I know that some of your members would like to see more funding to invest on community education. There is an urgent need for boating education to be given to the New Zealand community by the coastguard service.

People still go out in boats without life jackets, without rescue beacons, and in greater numbers than their boats or dinghys can handle safely.

As we head into summer, I’m sure you are gearing yourselves up for a busy time. Because for all your efforts to educate the public, in schools and at fishing tournaments, and throughout the community, people will still go out onto the water and get into trouble.

The tragic death of a child on Lake Taupo recently ignited a heated debate on whether we need licenses for boaties, just like we have licenses for car drivers. Certainly, we must keep the pressure up for boating education.

While the skill of our top yachties is world class, there is also a need for the fundamental skills of seamanship and boathandling to be spread more widely in the boating community.

There is still a large number of people who think nothing bad could ever happen to them.

New Zealanders love and treasure our oceans, lakes and rivers environment but we also need first class marine skills if we are to get the most out of our boating activities and be safe at the same time.

I was impressed to see how innovative you have been this year to raise awareness about safety: you used Trade Me to auction off rides across the Whanganui River bar on your super boat, Earthrace! I understand you had over 29,000 hits on TradeMe, and raised about $10,000.

Without you all we wouldn't have a Coastguard. And without the Coastguard, marine recreation and our Kiwi lifestyle on the water would be very different.

We're blessed with the marvellous coastline and waterways that we have in New Zealand.

We think of ourselves as a small country, because our population is small. But our coastline is enormous by global standards. And most of our coastline is readily accessible for pleasure craft as well as for commercial users.

It makes for a fantastic lifestyle. But it also inevitably makes for mishaps and accidents.

A lot of them are minor - people run out of fuel, get stranded or run across a minor problem. And the coastguard is there as a safety service to help them out.

Sometimes though, the mishaps are catastrophic. And then the help the Coastguard is able to provide is critical. It literally makes the difference between life and death, between recovery and tragedy.

On an average day the Coastguard around New Zealand makes ten rescues. That’s over 3500 incidents every year. And it’s potentially over 5600 people who may not be with us today if it wasn’t for you.

It's well known that one of the great privileges of living in Canterbury is that our weather conditions can be rugged at times. And whenever we hear of boats losing their way or needing help in those conditions, we also hear of brave coastguard efforts to help them.

For shift after shift, rescue teams from the Coastguard are going out into arduous cold and rough conditions hoping to make a rescue, knowing that when they come home, families will be waiting, desperate for good news.

That's what you're signing up to when you join the NZ Coastguard service and it is a heavy responsibility.

The New Zealand Coastguard Service helps to save lives and it's no wonder, therefore, that there is a special pride and sense of achievement in Coastguard volunteers as a result.

For all the work you do as volunteers in making our water safer, I want to express gratitude on behalf of the whole New Zealand community. It's a privilege to be here and for both Carole and I to be patrons of your local organisation. Carole and I congratulate you on your work over the last year and we congratulate and commend the people receiving recognition today and in the years gone by.

We wish you all the very best for the coming year.

Mourning the loss of a passionate New Zealander

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-09-24T14:20:29+12:00

“Howard Morrison was more than a world-class and unique entertainer; he was a fierce advocate for a fair go for all New Zealanders,” says Progressive leader Jim Anderton.

“It is not widely known that Sir Howard was passionately committed to the economic development of New Zealand – and in particular for Maori economic development and an equal place for Maori in New Zealand society.

“He never sought political glory, even though he was driven by strong convictions and beliefs all his life.

“His political and community work often went unnoticed. He put together formidable kapa haka groups of young people which reflected his absolute genius and understanding of the performing arts. He instilled in the young people he mentored a sense of self-worth and self disciple. He was a fierce opponent of drug and alcohol misuse.

“He worked with me on campaigns to turn young people away from drugs and alcohol and he stood beside us when we formed the Progressive Party. His kapa haka group, Te Wero, performed at the inaugural conference of the Progressives in 2003, and they were a wonderful testament to him.

Sir Howard approached me at a difficult time to lend his support and was not concerned that this could make him unpopular with certain people. I have always admired him greatly.

“He was passionate about making New Zealand a better place.

“Many New Zealanders have lost a good friend. We shared a belief in the talents of people in the regions of New Zealand, and a determination to support all New Zealanders, no matter where they come from, to realise their dreams and to aspire to be the best that they can.

“He kept a low-profile politically. But he was driven to do things for people, and because of his status as one of our most loved entertainers, his legacy will live on.

“He will be much missed by us all,” says Jim Anderton.

Fonterra capital restructuring

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-09-18T16:43:02+12:00

The Opposition will be listening very carefully to farmer comment about the proposals, agriculture spokesperson Jim Anderton says.

"New proposals for Fonterra's capital restructuring appear to provide more stability for Fonterra and avoid the trap of opening the back door to overseas ownership.

"It's difficult to balance the ambition of a global multinational with the benefits of a cooperative structure, and if farmers accept the latest proposal then it will be a good sign for the future of Fonterra and of our dairy company that the right balance has been reached.

"But the government should be careful not to bully farmers into the deal. Farmers know better than the government what is best for their own businesses. Government's role is to help where it can make a difference and step in when wider community interests are at stake. It shouldn't replace farmers' own judgments about the best capital structure for them, when farmers have legitimate interests to look out for."

Waikato innovation park opened

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-09-16T15:52:23+12:00

Jim Anderton was in Hamilton today to mark the further development of a project begun by the last Labour-led government; the formal opening of the now Tetra Pak building at Waikato Innovation Park.

As Minister of Economic Development, Mr Anderton had championed the initial establishment of the Park.

“I believed strongly that establishing and developing the park would help New Zealand agri-technology businesses to grow and develop,” says Opposition spokesperson on agriculture and Progressive leader, Jim Anderton.

“This is how governments actively support innovation and New Zealand business.

“It’s very disappointing that under the new National government support for big and bold ideas like this is less likely to occur.

“Our tax credits for businesses who invest in Research and Development for example, have been removed. That means a tax increase of about $1 billion over three years for anyone wanting to support initiatives like the Tetra Pak building.”

The Tetra Pak building will house many innovative companies working in the agricultural sector, including the multinational food processing and packaging company Tetra Pak, New Zealand Industry Training Organisation, and many others. It will house approximately 180 staff, doubling the size of the workforce at the Waikato Innovation Park.

Securing big multinational tenants like Tetra Pak means that the Park is now housing businesses which come up with new ideas to improve value for money from on-farm to processing activities.

“Only six years ago this was just a paddock of grass. Now it’s set to become a major contributor to wealth-creation in New Zealand.

“We need more centers of innovation like this across New Zealand. You don’t grow the economy with cycle tracks and small ideas. You need big and bold ideas. I wish the Waikato Innovation Park the best of luck for the future,” says Jim Anderton.

"Jim was the man..."

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-09-15T18:07:24+12:00

A gracious comment from Labour MP Clayton Cosgrove on the Labour MPs’ collective blog, about the opening of Sydenham police station.

“I was absolutely gobsmacked on Friday when [the Police Minister] opened the new Christchurch South police station, and failed to mention the immense debt this new building owes to the advocacy of Progressive MP Jim Anderton over a decade and a half. Instead, Collins trumpeted the new building as proof of National’s commitment to police and policing. National had nothing to do with this new station except as de facto purchasers of the ribbon Judith Collins cut.”

Here’s Jim’s statement on opening day.

Bill to stop MPs standing for Parliament

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-09-11T12:00:00+12:00

New Bill designed to stop MPs standing for election when they are already elected

Jim Anderton has drafted a Bill designed to stop current members of parliament from standing for election to parliament in a by-election.

The Bill will be placed in the Member’s Ballot. The next ballot for Member’s Bills is expected to be drawn next Thursday.

“It’s a nonsense that people can stand for election to parliament when they’ve already members of parliament,” says Member of Parliament for Wigram and Progressive leader, Jim Anderton

“What would rate-payers think if a member of a city council stood in a by-election to become a city councillor?”

In this year’s Mt Albert by-election, three out of the four main candidates were already members of parliament. Only the Labour Party candidate, David Shearer was not already an MP. Mr Shearer went on to win the by-election.

“There should be a rule that if you want to stand in a by-election, you first resign your seat in parliament.

“It’s not acceptable that M.Ps like Russell Norman for the Green Party, Melissa Lee for National, and John Boscawan for the Act Party used tax-payers’ money to run a campaign to get elected to parliament when they had already been elected. In reality they were using their parliamentary salaries and resources to try and win the by-election and bring another MP into parliament on their party list.

“If the Bill is introduced, existing M.P.s will have to make a meaningful choice - if they really want to run for a seat, they will need to resign from parliament and contest it on the same basis as anyone else. If a list member is so keen to represent the people of a particular electorate, his/her party can open an office there.

“In a general election, an electorate MP has no insurance. They have to win enough votes in their electorate or for their party to return to Parliament. It is inconsistent at the very least, to have different rules in a by-election,” says Jim Anderton.

Opening of Sydenham police station

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-09-11T14:00:00+12:00

Jim delivers on his promise

Twenty years ago, local MP Jim Anderton was promised funding to build a new police station in Sydenham. He put out a press release to announce the good news.

The 1984 press release has been pinned on the police notice board ever since.

“I was promised that the Christchurch South Police would have a new station in two to three years,” MP for Wigram Jim Anderton said.

But the funding never eventuated, until the last Labour-led government.

“I’m told that the police are going to frame the old press release from 1984 and give it to me!

“When I first arrived in Christchurch and stood as an MP in 1984, I could see that the police had totally inadequate facilities and were spread out over three sites which was hard to administer.

“In the 1984 –1990 Labour government, I kept reminding the Cabinet of their promise. In the years of the Labour-Progressive government of 1999 – 2008, I promised my Labour Cabinet colleagues that the only way they would get rid of me was to build the Christchurch South Police Station.

“That’s why I was thrilled to be present when the former Minister of Police, Annette King, laid the foundation for the new building last year and am thrilled that the police are finally in their new headquarters,” Jim Anderton said today.

Jim Anderton’s speech to the Labour Party Conference

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-09-11T19:30:00+12:00

Jim Anderton’s speech to the Labour Party Conference

7.30pm Friday 11th September 2009
ENERGY EVENTS CENTRE, GOVERNMENT GARDENS, ROTORUA

I would like to thank Phil Goff for his invitation to be here, for his warm introduction and for your kind welcome.

It’s been 21 years since I last spoke at a Labour Party conference. …Did anything happen while I was away?

In July, I wrote to the New Zealand Council of the Labour Party on behalf of the Progressive Party. I said the time had come to clear the way for our members to work together, in recognition of our common values; In recognition of the years we spent in government together; and in recognition that cooperation between us is in the best interests of the people we represent.

I’m pleased that the New Zealand Council responded with goodwill.

As a result, members of the Progressives can now also belong to the Labour Party – in other words, dual membership.

Anyone with a sense of our history will be moved by the determination and purpose with which we are pushing ahead.

We share a vision of New Zealand:
A fairer New Zealand.
A stronger New Zealand.
A New Zealand in which we work together for the benefit of all new Zealanders.
For jobs.
For better health care, better education.

And above all for the future; For a better future for New Zealanders young and old.

The Progressive party was formed by people determined to work with Labour in government.

Ten years ago I set out with Helen Clark to form a new government. We were faced with an urgent challenge:

Turning around New Zealand so that we were going in the right direction.
Creating jobs and strengthening regions.
Restoring public services.

And we did it:

We achieved the lowest level of unemployment in New Zealand’s modern history.
Gains for working New Zealanders, like paid parental leave and four weeks paid annual leave.
Fair collective bargaining and fair workplace laws.

This is what we can achieve by working together.

We lifted more children out of poverty than at any time since the Great Depression.
We restored income related rents for state houses. We brought down the cost of seeing a doctor and getting medicine.

This is what we achieved by working together.

We brought Air NZ back into public ownership.
We brought Kiwi Rail back into public ownership.
And we opened our own Kiwibank.

This is the kind of progress we will continue to make by working together.

They are gains I am proud of. And I particularly remember our coalition government’s decision to refuse to send troops to Iraq as a part of the unilateral action led by the USA and the UK.

It was the right decision and I can tell you that no-one was more supportive of that decision than Phil Goff as Minister of Foreign Affairs and that is just one of the reasons I strongly support his leadership of the New Zealand Labour Party.

But then last year New Zealanders looked at our government, and chose not to keep us there. There were many reasons contributing to our loss. But I am certain of the things they did not reject. I am certain they did not reject our values.

They rejected us because they believed we had moved onto other priorities.

They tired of controversies, mini-scandals and mistakes we should not have made.
Not because they rejected low unemployment; not because they no longer wanted government to deliver for ordinary families; not because they wanted a return to asset sales and cuts in public services.

They thought we were sidetracked from these priorities.

And they believed our opponents’ promises. Remember those?

National said they would put more money in your pocket. They called Michael Cullen “Scrooge” and blamed him for not spending surpluses. National said you didn’t have more money in your pocket because the Labour-Progressive government wouldn’t spend the surpluses.

They don’t mention that much now.

They got elected without a strategic plan to deal with the problems New Zealand faces.
And so the usual suspects are already gathering to demand a return to the failed policies of the past.

We’re already hearing the vultures who say, ‘all we need to do is sell our assets.’ But they are wrong. People are over it. Anyone who says our economic problems would be solved by selling Meridian energy or the Ports of Auckland is looking in the wrong place for the wrong solutions

The days are over when it could be credibly argued that radical restructuring would deliver jobs and raise incomes while herds of unicorns would guide us down golden pathways to the future.

When I was a young political organiser, I was stirred to action in part by the call to public service of President Kennedy, immortalised in the memorable line, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”

Hope. Service. And common purpose in pursuit of a common good. These are our values.
If we want to do better, and provide a better future for our children and grandchildren than the legacy we have inherited from the 80s and 90s, then we need to rediscover our common purpose.

Politics is not about point-scoring, or who is up and who is down. It’s not about Phil Goff, John Key, or Jim Anderton. It is about people, and ideas and leadership dedicated to realising a better future. And when we remember that, we will win.

Because our ideas are better. Because our side of politics is never content with the way things are. Because we want the mother with four kids who comes into my office with a $400 power bill to have a warm home, a good income and an opportunity for her kids to get well paid, skilled jobs when they leave school.

Because we want the young family that comes to see me with unaffordable dental bills to have access to life long, high quality, affordable dental health care.

Because we want superannuitants who come to see me with soaring rents for their home to be able to enjoy their retirement in affordable, housing.

Because we want the business that is taking on staff and growing to have access to the science and global networks that will help to create jobs and generate income in and for New Zealand.

President Obama said last year, “we are at our best when we lead with principle; when we lead with conviction; when we summon an entire nation around a common purpose – a higher purpose.”

He swept away cynicism with a vision of higher purpose and common effort in pursuit of a better country. And this should be our guide.

We have to be the voice of and for people who want to do better. We have to be the movement that says we get ahead by working hard and putting something back.
If we want kids to have a future, we must put something back.

If we want our elderly to enjoy a secure retirement, we must put something back. If we want our streets free from crime, we must put something back into the community so it offers potential criminals a stake, and a place to which they belong.

It is not acceptable that many elderly New Zealanders as well as low income families can not afford to heat their homes in winter. Nor is it acceptable that less than 66 per cent of all New Zealanders can afford to own their own home and that percentage is falling rapidly, while many of those who don’t, will never be able to do so.

And I still find the fact that the mental health system is the Cinderella of the physical health system something to be ashamed of as a New Zealander while more of us commit suicide than the numbers killed on our roads each year.

We need to do better at making our side of politics a thriving part of the regions of New Zealand. The Labour-progressive government did more for regional New Zealand than any government in recent memory – and, it has to be said, for less political reward.

But we need to listen to the regions – and even more we need to be part of those local communities. We need to be fearsomely well organised in regional New Zealand.

When I first joined the Labour Party in the nineteen sixties, its organisation was appalling.
Branches couldn’t talk to each other except by going through head office, for permission to do so. Our electorate organization, branch membership and election systems were so bad they were an embarrassment.

So much so that between 1949 and 1984, a period of 35 years, National was in government for 29 and Labour for just 6 years. In 1981 and 1984 we rolled right over the top of National’s much vaunted election machine.

If you have poor organisation it’s very hard to win elections. If you have great organisation, it’s funny how you start winning. It can seem lonely out there when there aren’t many members.

But even last year, as Labour lost both urban and non-urban based seats all over New Zealand, there were still hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who didn’t vote for this government.

They are the potential membership base from which Labour must build outwards. Not holding a seat today is not an obstacle to winning it next time. But not having a strong, local, regional and national organisation, is.

You won’t win without strong organization. It’s not enough on its own but it is a necessary ingredient.
Block systems in every winnable seat.
Door knocking in every winnable seat.
Hoardings in greater numbers than our opponents.
More energy, more visibility, more connections.
More members – In 1981 – 1984 Labour had over 100,000 registered members and supporters. This gave us not only an army for our election machine but enthusiasm, high morale and momentum which in the end overwhelmed our political opponents.

Can we do it again? As President Obama said often – “Yes, we can!”

Without organization and membership, you won’t raise the money that it will take to change the government.

When I produced a booklet recommending democratic institutional change in the 1960’s, head office banned and recalled it for a book burning – it’s true!

But I’ve learnt since then a thing or two about electorate organisation. Your National opponents have 9 seats with a majority of less than 2000 votes where a two-party swing of less than 3% to Labour would win all of them.

If you include Wigram on your side you only need one more seat to hold more electorate seats than National. What I am saying to you is that you can win the next election.

To win the party vote you need a two party swing of 5.84% which would give you an additional 277,573 party votes. This is a hard call but averaged out per electorate it means 3965 extra party votes in each.

Can you do it? Yes you can!

If you think you are in a tough situation try coming back from a coup against your leader in the middle of an election campaign!

We had an election system in Wigram that could tell us household by household how well we were doing.

My campaign organiser said to me before the election in 1990 as the NewLabour candidate for Sydenham that we would win by 4012 votes. No such victory had ever been achieved in the whole of New Zealand’s political history.

We won by 4009. Jeanette Lawrence was that organiser – and still is.

And in the first week after the election we were working on getting back the three votes we had failed to get. And nothing has changed in the organisation of my electorate over 25 years.

Winning elections comes from defining the positive difference we want to make for ordinary New Zealanders.

It comes from listening to New Zealanders, in regions and towns and from winning the trust and confidence of people we seek to represent. Winning comes from powerful, detailed organisation, at the level of every town and suburb, every street, every letterbox, every doorstep, every telephone, every mobile phone. It comes from Internet connections, and personal connections, and relentlessly returning to them again and again.

I pledge the Progressive Party to help in this endeavour.

We have already contributed a state of the art, modern election organization manual to almost all MPs and it is available to all candidates and campaign managers. Every one of the ideas it contains has been implemented in my electorate. I don’t expect this one to be burnt!

To achieve this result over the next two and a half years will require clear strategic goals, high quality campaign planning, tight discipline and superior organizational ability and capability. The gap cannot be closed in three to four months in election year. It is not rocket science. Everything in this election manual is already being done in several Labour electorates.

But the book is a compilation of the processes and techniques required to win in every electorate. This is a best practice guide to organizing in an electorate. It tells you what you can do, how to do it, and in what order.

In Wigram, we do everything in it. And we win!

The Progressive Party is contributing people to help.

A lot of our members went to Mt Albert this year to help Labour win that seat. And our members will be out on the streets again in 2011 helping to re-elect a Labour-led government.

It’s up to us all to inspire New Zealand with our common vision:
That everyone has a place.
That everyone has a chance to succeed.
That every single person has a unique contribution to make.
That when we choose to invest in our future, and in jobs, then New Zealand can again join the first rank of nations.

And then not just the chief executive but also the caretaker, the secretary and tradesmen and women will have a place in the winners’ circle.

That is the New Zealand we all know and love. That is the New Zealand we must commit ourselves to help re-build in just 2 years time.

Power company profits at the expense of consumers

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-09-04T13:00:48+12:00

The enormous profit declared by Mighty River Power shows that electricity companies have been overcharging consumers, Progressive MP Jim Anderton says.

He is calling for some of the dividend from the power companies to go to consumers as a rebate instead of the government as a dividend.

“I have record numbers of people approaching my electorate office with problems paying their power bills at the same time that a state owned power company is declaring a record profit, and paying the government a dividend of $230 million dollars.

“One way or another, the profits of the power companies are earned from the consumer paying power bills. The public energy companies are effectively being used as a form of tax – for providing a strategic essential service like electricity.

“I have people like a solo mother with four kids coming to see me with a $450 power bill at the same time that a public energy company is paying the government a special dividend of $150 million.”

Jim Anderton has been highlighting cases in his electorate that include a solo mother with an eleven month old baby who got a power bill for $369 for a four-week period; A low income young working couple in a Housing NZ flat got a power bill for $400 for four weeks, and a superannuitant living alone in his own home got a power bill for $205.

"Many families are wondering how they will pay their bills. Power bills have been driven up by a combination of an early start to winter, with very cold months early this year, and power bills that haverisen faster than inflation. The result is that many low income familiesare frightened to turn their heaters on, even in the middle of winter.

"Instead of making record profits, publicly-owned power companies should be charging consumers less,” Jim Anderton said.

Banks should front up

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-09-03T16:00:19+12:00

“The big Australian banks would have helped themselves more if they had openly fronted up to questions at the multi-party inquiry on banking,” Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.

This week ANZ National Bank released its financial results for the last nine months, and prepared a paper on the impact of the credit crunch on New Zealand Banks.

“I am interested in their views. The rest of the world is having an open debate about the banking sector right now. The owners of banks here front up in their home countries. They should front up here, too.

“New Zealanders who are struggling with high interest rates for their mortgages, their businesses and their farms would have been very interested in what banks had to say.

“Ralph Norris, chief executive of the ASB Bank in Australia, welcomed the inquiry as an opportunity to clear up some ‘myths’ the very same week the ASB said it didn’t want to contribute to better understanding of the issues.”

Today the Banking inquiry completed its public hearings. A final report will be released shortly.

Submissions were heard from business organisions, members of the public, and community groups from across New Zealand, including Kiwi Bank; New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association; FINSEC; Federated Farmers; CTU and many others.

“I would like to see a cross-party agreement on how we improve the performance of the whole financial sector in New Zealand, for the sake of those who pay too much in interest charges and bank fees, and for the sake of our businesses, and for the future of our economy and living standards in New Zealand ” Jim Anderton said.

PHOTOS here.

Act irresponsible in walking out too quickly

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-08-20T12:38:37+12:00

Making threats to get your way in government as Act leader Rodney Hide is doing is the wrong way to go about getting cooperation in government, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.

He has led two smaller coalition partners in government. He says Rodney Hide is threatening to flounce out of government if he doesn’t get his way.

“It’s counter-productive as a means to get the policy you want, and it is a bad way to govern. When two parties cannot handle their differences without one walking out, it says either there is bad faith at the heart of government, or one party is not up to the challenges of government.

“It is inevitable when there is more than one party in government that there will be some issues on which the parties feel passionate and have different views. If one party stomped out every time it couldn’t get what it wanted, then cooperation and coalition could never happen.

“Mr Hide thinks Act will win some support over the Maori seats issue, but it will lose more credibility than it gains. The public will see Mr Hide as irresponsible - and that is a larger problem for Mr Hide than the policy at stake.

“Larger parties will never be seen to be allowing the tail to wag the dog. All Act can do by walking out is make itself irrelevant. For small parties, there are a lot of bitter pills to swallow. If your ideas are popular, the larger party will adopt them as their own anyway, but at least you get your policy adopted.

“The way to get what you want is by constructive argument and dealing with the objections of your partner, not by making threats. If they couldn’t agree and believe the issue is so important, Act should have reached an agreement that another minister would take over the relevant bill, allowing Act to vote against it.

“Making every important issue a make or break one means that eventually the relationship will break or at least be less effective.

“I would be pleased to see someone else than Mr Hide as Minister for Local Government, however. He clearly doesn’t like local bodies or the constructive role they play in the development of their communities and that is hardly a good qualification for being their minister.”

Time has come for Kiwibank critics to admit they were wrong

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-08-20T12:37:13+12:00

The time has come for Kiwibank’s critics to admit they were wrong, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says, after the people’s bank today announced an after-tax profit of $52.5 million for the past year.

Loans grew by 52 per cent. Retail deposits grew by 39 per cent.

“The decision to set up a New Zealand-owned bank was the right one.

“Kiwibank has been an overwhelming success.

“It’s great that we have our own bank performing so well at a time of international financial crisis. We don’t have to be dependent on overseas financial markets. Those markets right now look like the dog that critics claimed that Kiwibank would be.

“Kiwibank’s success results from its commitment to the New Zealand community that other banks don’t have: Its profits stay here and help New Zealand. It doesn’t get involved in large tax avoidance schemes. Kiwibank opened a larger branch network than the other banks, and as a result those banks have stopped closing their branches. And Kiwibank charges lower interest rates and fees than its overseas competitors.

“When Kiwibank was set up, National and Act – and their cheerleaders – said New Zealanders couldn’t run our own bank. They were wrong. Today would be a graceful day to admit it.”

Farmers to pay for Auckland roads

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-08-19T17:58:26+12:00

Farmers will be paying more for Auckland roads because of National’s decision to replace a regional fuel tax with a general increase in petrol tax, Opposition agriculture spokesperson Jim Anderton says.

“The roads are still regional, but now the bill is national.

“There aren’t many farms in Auckland. But farmers will be getting the bill for Auckland roads.

“When we had a regional tax, a tunnel under Auckland would have been paid by Auckland motorists. Now they have axed the tunnel, and sent the bill to farmers and others outside Auckland. Everyone loses.

“Fuel costs are an important input cost for farmers. When petrol tax goes up, their input costs go up.

“It can be fair to charge someone more when they get more of the benefit. But farmers and others in rural communities get less benefit from new Auckland roads than Aucklanders do,” Jim Anderton said.

Sending NZ SAS to Afghanistan

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-08-18T16:54:28+12:00

Jim Anderton’s speech in Parliament’s urgent debate on sending NZ SAS to Afghanistan
The Progressive Party was established only after a policy disagreement over intervention in Afghanistan. So we have passionate views about this issue.

And today we believe we must continue to support stability in Afghanistan, but the days when we should have combat troops there are over.

In 2002 Progressive supported New Zealand involvement in Afghanistan because the situation there at the time represented a clear and present threat to the civilised world.

Al qaeda had just committed a terrorist atrocity in the United States.

I was acting prime minister the day it happened.

One of those killed in the US attacks was a New Zealand citizen.

I sent a message to the US President saying New Zealand saw the attack as an attack on not only the United States, but on all civilised society. And I promised New Zealand would stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States in resisting the terrorist attacks, and we kept that promise.

The al qaeda threat was a global threat.

The Taleban responded to those attacks by giving al qaeda shelter.

In the football stadiums where election rallies are being held today, the Taleban were then carrying out mass executions for their perverted political ends.

The world could not stand by and ignore what was being done to civilisation.

The Secretary General of the UN at the time said: “The only way to win against terrorism is to organise a common international action. The main point is that the fight be led within the framework of the United Nations on the basis of the two Security Council resolutions and the General Assembly resolutions.”

That UN agreement to intervene is crucial.

International law makes it clear that the only grounds for military intervention are self-defence or UN-sanction. And so UN authority for the Afghanistan intervention was vital to ensure it complied with international law.

Once that was decided, our involvement was to send provincial reconstruction teams.
We also sent the SAS.
Their work is not soft. Willie Apiata’s Victoria Cross is proof of that.

But you cannot send children to school and sick people to hospital, and you cannot develop economies and end poverty, when terrorists are doing their best to kill and to threaten entire communities.

So I supported SAS involvement in Afghanistan to help reconstruction. My party exists because of it.

But it’s not an open-ended commitment. What we cannot support is involvement that tries to take sides in the feudal infighting in Afghanistan today. There are layers of sides in Afghanistan. We can’t pick one over the other.

We can help the country to clear itself of al qaeda, however. We must have United Nations authority to do so. We must have a firm base in international law.
But we cannot just walk away.

That would give not only Afghanistan, but northern Pakistan to the Taleban and to other ideological extremists.

Pakistan is a nuclear state. I don’t like that it is - but it is. And it is teetering dangerously. The consequences of a nuclear state like Pakistan becoming even more unstable are too dangerous to tolerate. The whole world has a strong interest in making sure that doesn’t happen.

The best contribution we can make is to support stability in Afghanistan. Therefore we should offer to be there and to help.

But I do not support doing so through a continued combat role for the SAS in Afghanistan.

We have pulled our weight there. We have spent over $180 million on military assistance and aid there.

This is a debate about the kind of assistance we offer. Our contribution today has to be towards rebuilding, and helping strengthen the Afghan National Army under democratic control following the elections later this week.

Comment on agriculture, August 2009

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-08-20T06:42:00+12:00

Comment for Canterbury Farmer August 09.

When new targets for reducing our carbon emissions were released, Federated Farmers said they remain concerned about the impact on farming and the wider economy.

It’s not hard to see why, considering the importance of farming to our economy.

If an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is reached, it is likely to require that emissions targets are stricter for rich countries than for poor ones. Alone among developed countries, agriculture makes up a huge share of our total greenhouse gas emissions. Other economies that are dominated by agriculture are poor.

If our farmers have to pay for emissions while, their competitors in poor countries don’t, the hit on our economy will be substantial.

But there are other factors we need to consider.

Greenhouse gas emissions cause climate changes, and if no global agreement is reached to do something, climate change is likely to damage our agriculture.

Getting an agreement on climate change suits us, because no other developed country is as dependent on climate as we are. Just ask farmers who had to cope with long, crushing droughts in recent years whether climate change was good for their businesses.

I think this point is avoided by critics who talk about other developed countries leaving agriculture out of agreements, or who question climate change altogether. Their approach is not prudent - careful management requires that we manage risks, and climate change represents a big risk to New Zealand agriculture and therefore to our economy.

We have to do our bit if we are going to get the rest of the world to do theirs.

I heard our trade negotiations minister, Mr Groser, say that the government will be very cautious in climate change talks. We will follow other countries and we won’t try to set an example of best practice.

Mr Groser used to be one of our trade negotiators, and he argued exactly the opposite approach - when he talks about global free trade he talks about leading the world, setting a good example and being the purest of the pure. Now he wants a change of approach when it comes to climate change.

The inconsistency will cost us credibility.

Maybe Mr Groser doesn’t believe in climate change. But even if he doesn’t believe the science, it’s still bad for farming to hold out against the world.

We won’t get our competitors in India, China and Brazil to sign up to emissions agreements if we don’t pull our weight, and we won’t get consumers in rich countries to pay a premium for pure New Zealand food if they perceive us as dirty.

So on business grounds alone, we need to do our bit.

The best approach to reduce our total emissions would be more forestry planting, more research into technology that can help farmers reduce emissions, more renewable energy generation and energy conservation, better pubic transport and more use of biofuels.

That would take some pressure off farming businesses.

Unfortunately, farmers are being hung out to dry by decisions that have scaled back progress on all these fronts.

My worry is that the result will be that farmers eventually get dumped with all the costs of climate change, and none of the help they should have to deal with the costs.

Families in energy poverty while Brownlee looks for magic pudding solution

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-08-12T14:41:00+12:00

New recommendations on energy costs provide no hope of quick relief for
households facing huge power bills this year, Progressive Wigram MP Jim
Anderton says.

"Gerry Brownlee is relying on a magic pudding solution that reduces
costs but no one's going to pay.

"Finding a new structure in energy could take years, while there is a
crisis of electricity poverty this winter," Jim Anderton says.

His Wigram electorate office has been inundated with record numbers of
people who can't afford their winter power bills.

For example, a solo mother with an eleven month old baby got a power
bill for $369 for a four-week period. A low income young working couple
in a Housing NZ flat got a power bill for $400 for four weeks, and a
superannuitant living alone in his own home got a power bill for $205.

"Many families are wondering how they will pay their bills. Power bills
have been driven up by a combination of an early start to winter, with
very cold months early this year, and power bills that have risen faster
than inflation.

"There are alternatives. The state of Victoria, for example, provides
low-income households with more than $1 billion a year in concessions
for essential services. It pays a rebate to some households that reduces
the cost of LPG heating gas. In the United Kingdom, the government
provides a winter fuel payment of NZ$750 for pensioners over 60, and it
pays NZ$1200 for the over-80s.

"Today's review shows energy companies are charging too much for power
and some of those profits should be used to help very poor New Zealand
households," Jim Anderton said.

Matt Robson speech: Towards an Arctic Nuclear Weapons Free Zone

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-08-10T13:49:13+12:00

Towards an Arctic Nuclear Weapons
Free Zone

Towards a Nuclear Weapons’ Free World

Hon Matt Robson

Address at

Copenhagen Pugwash Conference
10-11 August 2009

We live in an unbalanced world in terms of what humanity needs and what humanity gets. That means we live in a world of contradictions.

Billions of our fellow citizens live without adequate, shelter, food or clothing. Over 2.5 billion human beings, 40% of the world’s population, have to try and live on less than US$2 per day. They lack adequate health care, if they get it all, and have little quality education. The great majority in this situation live in the so-called developing world. But a sizeable number who go without also live in the richest countries.

The world’s richest individuals have a combined income greater than that of the poorest 416 million.

Yet those whom Bob Dylan called ‘the masters of war’ have determined that rather than meeting these basic needs of humanity ,that military spending will take priority and that that spending needs indeed to increase.

The internationally respected Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) reported in June 2008 as follows:

World military spending grew 45 percent in the past decade with the United States accounting for nearly half of all expenditure. Military spending grew 6 per cent in 2007. And that growth continues.

In 2007 $1.338 trillion was spent on arms and other military expenditure, corresponding to 2.5 per cent of global Gross Domestic Product, or GDP – or $202 for each of the world’s 6.6 billion people.

The United States spends by far the most toward military aims, officially dishing out $547 billion last year, or 45 percent of global expenditure. Britain, China, France and Japan, their next group of big military spenders, lag far behind at just 4 to 5 percent of world military costs each.

In 2008, eight nuclear weapon states possessed almost 10,200 operational nuclear weapons. Several thousand of these nuclear weapons are kept on high alert. When all nuclear warheads are counted – operational warheads, spares, those in both active and inactive storage, and intact warheads to be dismantled, the nuclear armed states have 25,000 warheads.

So we know where the weapons of mass destruction that George Bush went looking for in Iraq are located. Those WMD's were right under the noses of George and Tony. Not with rogue states and terrorist groups but in the military installations of the largest and most powerful states and a number of them in the fragile ecosystem of the Arctic region.
SIPRI concludes that the 5 nuclear states defined by the NPT in 1968 - China, France, Russia, the UK the USA - are all in the process of deploying new nuclear weapons or have announced their intention to do so.

The de facto nuclear weapon states of Israel, India and Pakistan, and probably North Korea, are proceeding apace to develop missile systems that can deliver nuclear weapons.

In the decade to 2008 military spending in Eastern Europe went up 62 per cent. North America 65 per cent, the Middle East by 62 per cent, South Asia by 57 per cent and Africa and East Asia by 51 per cent each.

This escalation has of course been a bonanza for the Merchants of Death. Sixty-three of the hundred top weapons firms are in the USA and Western Europe. In 2006 their sales were reported as $292.3 billion. In the economic recession, they are not reported as having any great financial problems.

Joseph Stieglitz and Linda Bilmes in their wonderful research for the “Three Trillion Dollar War”, published in 2008, estimated that the USA had spent three trillion dollars on George Bush and Tony Blair’s war against Iraq. They asked how this enormous sum could have been used beneficially in the USA and the wider world.

For the USA alone, they say:
A trillion dollars could have built 8 million additional housing units, could have hired some 15 million additional public school teachers for one year; could have paid for 120 million children to attend a year of head start; or insured 530 million children for health care for one year; or provided 43 million students with four – year scholarships at public universities. Now multiply those numbers by three.

They then go on to calculate the effect if the money or even a fraction of it, for the war had been devoted to development goals for the poorest countries:

For sums less than the direct expenditures on the war, we could have fulfilled our commitment to provide 7 per cent of our gross domestic product to help developing countries – money that could have made an enormous difference to the well-being of billions living in poverty today ... two trillion dollars would enable us to meet our commitments to the poorest countries for the next third of a century.

How to redress this imbalance of expenditure?

If a referendum was held of the world’s peoples on whether military expenditure should be greatly decreased and for the abolition of all nuclear weapons in favour of the goals set out by Stieglitz and Bilmes my money would be on the bet that a thumping majority would vote yes.

Our task at this conference is to be part of a movement to mobilise humanity so that that referendum becomes a reality and a movement of solidarity across the globe grows and its voice becomes one that cannot be ignored.

Nuclear weapon free zones are a vital tool in developing that voice so that that voice becomes a powerful political force.

Creating an Arctic nuclear-free zone will be an important part of building that political force will redress the imbalance with the Antarctic and will provide an important impetus to the goal of the total abolition of all nuclear weapons.

The Southern Hemisphere

When all the countries of Africa below the equator are committed to the Treaty of Pelindaba, and that is almost complete, then every country in the southern hemisphere will be free of nuclear weapons.

This means the Pacific countries, those in Asia, Latin America and now Africa have committed themselves to rid not only their own territories of nuclear weapons but also to being part of the overwhelming number of countries committed to their total abolition.

We in New Zealand, at government level, and among the people, have long supported the call not just for a southern hemisphere nuclear weapons free zone but one that incorporates adjacent areas as well.

We are well aware that the indigenous peoples of the Pacific, in the north and south, have led the way in our region to be nuclear-free. Their territories and waters were the testing ground for the nuclear powers and they suffered terribly and continue to suffer from the effects of radiation and forced relocation.

All of Latin America, Central and South, and the Caribbean are nuclear weapons free zones.

And at the Antarctic, that area so important for the whole planet, a nuclear weapons free zone, a military free zone, has been in place since the Treaty of Antarctica of 1959. It is unimaginable now that humanity would accept nuclear weapons or any military activity in this precious heritage area for the earth.

The Madrid Protocol of 1991 to the Treaty of Antarctica has reinforced the Antarctic’s peaceful status by proclaiming that it is a natural reserve and the only activities permitted under international law are those devoted to peaceful purposes, scientific research and protection of the environment. Mining exploration is prohibited.

It is more than time, 50 years later that Antarctica is balanced by its polar opposite at the Arctic, equally important for the survival of life on this planet. The Arctic must be declared a nuclear weapons free zone for the sake of humanity for the sake of the world’s ecosystem. The wheel does not have to be reinvented. The model to achieve this goal exists in the Treaty of Antarctica and over 50 years of adherence by the whole world to its provisions.

And that NWFZ for the Arctic is what this conference will set its sights on

Checking in all nuclear weapons at the Equator

Earlier this year I had an enforced stay in a hotel in Hong Kong. To pass the time I watched a John Wayne special – 5 westerns. In one of the B-grade (or possibly C-grade) films, John Wayne, as sheriff, and Dean Martin as his deputy, battled lawlessness in a frontier town. One of their key methods was to ensure that all and sundry at the precincts of the town handed in their guns. They could pick them up on the way out.
This reminded me of my suggestion as a Minister to the, inaptly named, Conference on Disarmament at Geneva in early 2000.

Remembering the westerns I had seen on so many Saturday afternoons as a child, where they practised the John Wayne method, I suggested to the nuclear powers represented at the conference that it would be a big step forward for disarmament if they committed to check in their nuclear weapons at the Equator before entering the Southern Hemisphere.

Exactly how this would work in practice, and how the weapons would be stored and safeguarded, I had not worked out at that stage. But I am sure that those mere details could have been prescribed.

Needless to say my proposal did not receive a warm welcome from the five declared nuclear powers of the NPT, in particular the United States. One representative accused me of trying to undermine NATO with my proposal. I replied that I hadn’t had that intention but now that he mentioned it i thought that was probably a good idea.

I can advise however, that in talks with the representative of China he did state that China would commit to such a policy and that China would respect the NWFZ status of the Southern Hemisphere if all other countries did.

How do we get to our goal for the Arctic?

First of all we should remember what a step forward it would be to the goal of the NPT of abolishing all nuclear weapons if the Arctic gained the status of Antarctica.

Then we should remember the patient building and mobilising of public opinion that went into creating the NWFZ that now exist, including the most recent one in 2006 in the central Asian States.

The key is mobilising public opinion, by committed parliamentarians, peace groups, environmental groups and the mass organisations. Support can then be built nationally, regionally and internationally.
Modern technology, as events in Iran have demonstrated once again, can give the wings of Mercury to this movement. To say that someone was twittering was once an insult. Now it makes the most powerful politician quake to hear the word.
Enormous support is also building for such zones in Central Europe, East Asia and the Middle East.

In regard to the Arctic, the only Arctic states that are not already nuclear-free are the United States and Russia. That of course presents a huge obstacle. These two super powers are expanding both their military, commercial and exploratory activity as global warming relentlessly frees up large areas that were previously frozen and made access difficult or impossible.

Norway’s Foreign Minister was reported in the Guardian newspaper recently as saying that:

“The rise in temperature across the Arctic is twice the world average. Soon there will be no summer ice – that will open up new routes and new strategic issues for the world...”

And those strategic issues include the greater military presence in the Arctic, including a nuclear armed presence on submarines, aircraft and bases, as countries position themselves to take advantage of newly accessible mineral resources and a new sea route at the top of the world.

Fortunately we do no have to start from zero to try and make the call of the 2007 Canadian Pugwash group for an Arctic NWFZ a reality.
Already a Seabed Treaty forbids the stationing of nuclear weapons on the Arctic Ocean floor. The majority of Arctic states are nuclear weapon free. The majority of states are trying to work cooperatively on the key environmental questions.

But as international lawyer Donald Rothwell has pointed out:

“The current Arctic environmental protection regime is based around a collection of customary international law, fragmented multilateral and bilateral legal instruments dealing with some arctic issues, and global international instruments that have an impact in the arctic. Currently there is no unifying connector for these various components of international law which have specific and general application in the arctic. Unlike Antarctica, there is no regional infrastructure based on international law to facilitate or promote cooperation and the development of new international law.”

Our job is to work towards getting that unifying connector and to develop that new international law.

We need to work closely with all the ecological activists , as so many of us do, who are highlighting the fragility of the Arctic, the disaster that is global warming and the need to give the Arctic the type of protection that Antarctica already has.

The declaration that comes from this Conference needs to be a mobilising document that goes out by every conceivable means so that the twitter becomes a clarion call for action.

Our parliaments across the world, our mass organisations, our scientists and youth leaders and the organisations of indigenous people can take up this demand to add the Arctic, which is the heritage for all humanity and pivotal to the survival of life on the planet, to the existing and growing zones which are free of that blight on humanity – nuclear weapons.

Electricity poverty crisis

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-08-05T12:00:39+12:00

Electricity poverty crisis
There is a crisis of electricity poverty underway in New Zealand this winter, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.
His electorate office has been inundated with record numbers of people who can’t afford their winter power bills.
Examples include:

- A solo mother with an eleven month old baby got a power bill for $369 for a four-week period. She has a wood burner but can’t afford wood. She has a medical certificate from her GP about the respiratory condition of her baby. She lives in a Housing New Zealand home, but can’t get a heat pump or carpet to help keep the house warm. How is she supposed to pay that bill?
- A young couple in another Housing NZ home have one source of power – a wall heater. They got a power bill for $400 for four weeks. These are working people on a very low income, already struggling to pay their rent. There is paint peeling off the walls because of mould. They are on the waiting list for a heat pump, but won’t be getting it before the winter is over.
- A young solo mother with four children came to my office with a power account of $400 for four weeks. They are in a Housing New Zealand home with a log burner, and on the urgent waiting list for a heat pump.
- I had a superannuitant who came to see me, living in his own home, alone. He got a power bill for $205. If you are living on a fixed income and you get a power bill of $205 for four weeks, what are you supposed to do?

“I urge the government not to victimise these people or bash them in public for asking for help.
“What is a solo mum with four kids meant to do with a power bill of $400 for four weeks? All four children have recurrent upper and lower respiratory tract infections. That is what happens when you have electricity poverty. Health problems that cost much more than the power bill.
“I understand that Housing New Zealand is not even allowing energy community action to enter homes to undertake a report on insulation and heating options.
“There is no other expense that is similar to electricity bills - a seasonal spike that is an unavoidable expense, unpredictable and sometimes quite extreme in the context of a family budget;
“There are alternatives. The state of Victoria, for example, provides low-income households with more than $1 billion a year in concessions for essential services. It pays a rebate to some households that reduces the cost of LPG heating gas.
“In the United Kingdom, the government provides a winter fuel payment of NZ$750 for pensioners over 60, and it pays NZ$1200 for the over-80s.
“I believe we need some urgent intervention to help New Zealand homes. Energy prices have been rising steadily for around fifteen years. That has now combined with a very cold couple of months.
“The result is electricity poverty and real hardship for thousands of New Zealanders,” Jim Anderton said.

Progressives to co-operate with Labour in coalition

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2008-11-19T15:50:52+13:00

A close relationship with Labour in government will be every bit as close in Opposition, Progressive Party leader and Wigram MP leader Jim Anderton says. The Progressives will formally cooperate with Labour in Opposition.

Jim Anderton, who was agriculture minister, will be the Opposition coalition agriculture spokesperson on behalf of both parties.

"Before the election, we said we would only enter government in partnership with Labour. We couldn’t support National because we won’t work with parties that are likely to increase poverty, that try to sell publicly-owned strategic assets, that increase unemployment, or that fail to take care of our most vulnerable citizens.

"Progressives share with Labour a joint determination to ensure that National govern for no more than a single term, to stop it before it can do lasting damage to New Zealand and to refresh New Zealand’s interest in a progressive future.

"Our leadership group has met and we believe our long-term future is with our close partners in the Labour Party."

Jim Anderton said a priority for the Progresives beyond his coalition role would be to push better access to dental care.

Address in Reply debate

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2008-12-10T17:00:00+13:00

Mr Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating the government on their achievement in winning the general election and the confidence and trust of many New Zealanders.

The responsibility the public has handed them is enormous.

And though I strongly oppose some of the plans they have made for New Zealand, as a loyal New Zealander the Government has my very best wishes for success in their stewardship of our economy and our country.

I hope their promises will come true.

They promised to make significant reductions in crime.

They promised New Zealanders would stop leaving to live a while in other countries.

They promised our wages would equal or pass the wages of Australians.

They promised they could radically cut taxes on ordinary working families and increase spending on all our social services at the same time.

They promised the government wouldn’t overtax New Zealanders with fiscal surpluses, nor project deficits into the future; but it would instead berth the fiscal supertanker precisely on a low tax, high-spending button every single budget.

The Prime Minister travelled to very disadvantaged streets and promised we would no longer have pockets of deprivation in our cities where some kids are left behind in poverty.

He promised all our children would be able to read and write because the testing they introduce to the education system will make all the difference in the world.

He promised us world class infrastructure, the fastest broadband in the world, and an end to disputes over water allocation, instant resource management decisions and new motorways where today there are only broken dirt tracks.

The prime minister spent the election campaign travelling to every marginal seat and making solemn pledges of unbudgeted Think Big spend ups totalling hundreds of millions of dollars. And all those towns and cities are now patiently expecting him to deliver.

So I say to the government - good luck with all that!

There is not a single item on that list that I wouldn’t wish them to succeed in delivering.

As promises go, they are slightly more ambitious than I would have made. I would have recommended that promising absolutely everything to absolutely everybody risked disappointing someone sooner or later.

However, I will be the first to congratulate the government if it pulls off a significant portion of its stunningly immodest programme.

It will start its term this week with a swag of legislation.

It won’t send those new laws to select committee, as democracy and good government would require.

This is a government that campaigned in opposition against what it said was the end of democracy.

In Opposition it promised a fresh new standard of good government.

And its very first act in government is to throw out democratic standards like select committee hearings on its proposals.

The government is entitled, of course, to put in place the policy it has a mandate for.
But it makes a mistake if it thinks every bill it drafts will be perfect at the outset.

So it starts out with the defining combination of mediocrity - weakness and arrogance.

Too weak to hold public hearings on its laws.

Too insecure in the strength of its ideas to truly believe that they will hold up under scrutiny.

Too arrogant to admit its ideas could be improved.

Too mediocre to deliver on the promises it has made to New Zealand.

Already in the short month since the election we have seen one example of a weak arrogant government in action: its reaction to the potential ACC budget.

I have listened to ministers bumble through this issue with growing amazement that anyone could enter government so little prepared for its challenges.

Confronted with a change in the actuarial calculation facing ACC, ministers panicked.

This is an inexperienced government. It has yet to understand that officials will come to them every month, perhaps every week, demanding more money for something they say faces a crisis.

This week it is ACC.

Next week it will be the hospital system. Will they panic again when DHBs report their annual deficits?

Let me make some predictions: Some defence and IT projects will suddenly develop cost over runs worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Some SOEs will reduce their profit projections from rosy to deficits. They will demand huge capital injections to remain viable.

A new biosecurity scare will need tens of millions of dollars to eradicate or control.

Every other week, another mundane crisis will come before Cabinet.

Ministers need to be strong enough to deal with them.

But what did we get in the ACC episode? Did we get strength? Did we get sophistication? Did we get the wisdom that says - yes, ACC actuarial calculations go up and down?

No. We got the arrogance that is already beginning to look like the colour of this government. We got a massive over-reaction. Even a ministerial inquiry.
The prime minister has set a low bar for ministerial inquiries and we will be having a lot of them at this rate.

They need to toughen up.

They need to toughen up because they can’t have the free lunch their policy promised.

They will have to make some hard choices.

In 1999, the last government was elected with Crown net debt over 20 per cent of GDP.

By last year, that net debt had gone.

We had positive net financial assets.

Now this National government wants to blow it all again.

Treasury won’t report its current set of forecasts for Crown debt until after the government’s new laws have been passed under urgency.

In other words, they will spend the money before they know whether they even have it.

This is what National always does in government - it takes from the future for its short term advantage today.

National’s rushed increases in overseas borrowing are not to strengthen our economy.

They aren’t to fund more research and development; National is cutting that.

It’s not increasing borrowing to invest in higher education standards.

It’s not increasing borrowing to promote exports as a proportion of GDP.

It’s not increasing overseas borrowing to strengthen our regions or to create more jobs.

No, the increased borrowing is to fund additional personal tax cuts.

Those cuts are more generous to the most affluent, rather than to the people who are most vulnerable in a global economic downturn.

Someone in the future will have to pay for National’s irresponsibility.

When you borrow from overseas to splurge on tax cuts for people who need them least - someone has to pay for it.

Someone in the future will have to pay more tax. Someone in the future will have their services cut.

And the problem is being compounded because National is reducing the ability of kiwis to create their own nest eggs.

The party that used to say it was all about personal responsibility is slashing Kiwisaver to pieces.

At the very time when we most need to strengthen New Zealand for the future, the National government is doing the opposite.

It is a mediocre government with mediocre ideas about how to meet the challenges New Zealand faces.

How mediocre?

The very first bill they announced today is the Tax bill.

And the centre piece of that bill is the largest ever increase in tax on business in New Zealand.

The very first thing this government does is to increase tax on innovation.

The very first thing it does is to say we have too much innovation in New Zealand.

Of all the criticisms I have ever heard of the New Zealand economy, National’s claim we have too much innovation, and too much research and development is the silliest.

But from this day forward, National will always be the party of higher tax on business.

It will always be the party that imposed the highest ever increase in the total business tax burden.

And it will reap the consequences in poorer long term economic performance.

Let me make a prediction: Under this government, unemployment will rise. Economic growth will be slower than over the average of the last nine years. The wage gap with Australia will grow.

That is what a weak government with no vision will accomplish?

Let me spell out some more visionary ideas for how New Zealand might prosper in the coming years and months, as the rainfall of global economic crisis both threatens us, and presents us with an unprecedented opportunity.

First, they should increase, not reduce, New Zealanders’ ability to own more assets here and around the world.

And the way to do that is to push for more saving and investment.

The best way to protect the vulnerable in these troubled economic times globally is to direct tax cuts most heavily to those who are most vulnerable - not to those who are most able to protect themselves.

But what does this government plan to do?

It plans to give the bulk of tax cuts to the highest income earners. It plans to give least to those who need it most.

And as the government invests and looks to stimulate the economy through the global downturn, it could ensure that it invests in measures that make the most difference to those who need help the most.

Instead of capping state housing, it could invest in more housing.

As we read in the news this morning of thousands of predicted job losses in the construction industry, there has seldom been a more opportune time to build more state houses, to employ those builders and construction workers and to make home ownership more affordable for New Zealand families.

A visionary government would look at how it can improve the wellbeing of New Zealanders, instead of how it can get away with stripping as many services as possible.

I recommend to the new government that it looks at ways to make dental care more affordable and accessible for New Zealanders. I will be bringing some more ideas about how to do that into this parliament, as I promised I would do during the election campaign.

And I will also bring forward some more ideas on reducing crime.

Sixty percent of New Zealanders who are arrested are affected by alcohol at the time of the offending for which they are arrested. Two out of three arrests are alcohol related.

And the evidence shows very strongly that the problem has got much worse since alcohol laws were relaxed and alcohol became much more widely available.

If you want a common element in the crime spree in South Auckland this year, it’s hard to go past the easy availability of alcohol.

Alcohol is available on street corners everywhere, at all hours, promoted heavily in all media and sold in ever-increasing quantities to teenagers.

But there wasn’t a word about that in the speech from the throne.

Instead, the government blames P. It blames sentencing. Well P is a problem, but ask any expert, ask any police officer - what causes the most social and human damage in New Zealand, day in and day out - and the answer is alcohol abuse.

And that is not because alcohol is intrinsically the most dangerous drug, but because it is the most widely available drug.

So I will be bringing proposals to this House to make alcohol less available and I challenge the government to act on them. Because if you are in favour of the unlimited availability of alcohol, you are pro-crime.

And finally I want to say that if there is one area where we have much more to do, it is poverty, both here in New Zealand and globally.

I heard the pledges of the government in the speech from the Throne to end the cycle of disadvantage. That is a worthy ambition and I support it. But I listened hard for how they are going to do it, and the cupboard of ideas is as bare as the food cupboards of some of our most impoverished homes.

I have watched around the world with fascination at the speed with which governments have been able to act to bail out huge companies and banks when they have been in desperate need.

They have shown that with goodwill, action is possible to help in an emergency. That governments can act to help when help is needed.
And it leaves a question for all of us in this parliament - if we can do that for big companies and big banks in times of crisis, why can’t we do it for people in crisis?

Why can’t we do it for the hundreds of millions of people who don’t have enough to eat, who don’t have clean water, who can’t hope for basic medicine? Why can’t we bail them out?

New Zealand should be a voice for them internationally, and a voice for the compelling new ideas that are emerging internationally to solve these global problems.

At a time when global crisis threatens to deepen global poverty and darken even further the skies over the lives of the world’s least privileged, we should be saying that if the world can offer crisis help to the strong, then we must also offer emergency bailout for the weakest and poorest.

I call on our government to work constructively across party lines to see how New Zealand can use our almost unique position in the world as an efficient food producer to make a difference.

And I pledge my support for any efforts they make to do so.

Nothing for agriculture, bag of peanuts to replace National’s largest ever increase in business tax.

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-02-01T15:46:34+13:00

Business tax measures announced today are worth only a fraction of the increase in business tax the National Government introduced before Christmas, Progressive leader Jim Anderton says.

And the changes, worth just $10.50 a week to a small business, again ignore agriculture when New Zealand’s main source of overseas income faces testing times.

“The first thing National did in office was to introduce the largest increase in tax paid by business in New Zealand’s history. It introduced a new tax on innovation, at a cost to our most promising industries of over a billion dollars in just three years. The peanut-sized tax policies announced today are worth less than half that.

“Across 220,000 small businesses, $480 million over four years is worth only $10.50 a week. That’s a big bag of peanuts.

“It is a quarter of the two billion dollars that would have been invested in our primary industries through the New Zealand Fast Forward fund if National had not jeopardised our economic future by axing it.

“There is nothing for agriculture in this package. Agriculture earns two thirds of New Zealand’s income overseas, and if we are going to weather the global economic crisis we need to strengthen our agricultural sector. The National Government didn’t mention agriculture in the Speech From the Throne and didn’t get a mention from the Prime Minister today. This is a government made up of money market dealers, not people who understand productive businesses that power the real economy.

“If John Key hadn’t spent his first months in office on holiday, he would have had the strength to reverse his failed tax on innovation. The measures announced today are useful, but nowhere near enough to deliver the strength and innovation our economy needs.”

July Edition of Jim's E-News

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-07-28T12:00:00+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:

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.

Minimum Wage Should Rise

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-02-03T14:07:56+13:00

Progressive MP Jim Anderton is supporting calls for an increase in the minimum wage when the national government discusses the issue next Monday.

He says protecting the vulnerable is the highest priority for managing the global economic recession.

“The government will need to be reassured that increasing the minimum wage won’t cost jobs. And experience of the last nine years shows just that. Unemployment fell to record lows while the minimum wage was steadily increased by over 70% in nine years.

“Increasing the buying power of the lowest income workers makes sense because they are more likely than anyone to spend their income, keeping the money in circulation and boosting the whole economy at a time when it is needed.

“The employer groups calling for a cut in the minimum wage need to look at the Great Depression. The accumulated effect of everyone cutting back was to drive the economy into a deeper hole.

“The government is likely to make some changes to business tax, and depending on the design that could well be helpful. But it would send the wrong message to cut the minimum wage in real terms at the same time,” Jim Anderton said.

Gangs and Organised Crime Bill

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-02-10T14:06:51+13:00

Jim Anderton's speech to Parliament on the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill

If I could sum up this Bill with one sentence, it would be that the government has wildly raised expectations about dealing to violent crime in New Zealand.

The Opposition will support this Bill, but it is not the silver bullet National promised.

It will not significantly reduce violent crime in New Zealand as National has promised.

It will not make the huge dent in crime that National promised New Zealanders. The previous government was already promoting this legislation and we would have passed something similar - but we would not pretend as National does that this is all you need to do.

I have no trouble declaring that the major factors in crime should be on the wrong end of tough law.

Gangs are a cause of crime, so we should be tough with them.

And we should be tough on all the causes.

There is one factor linked to crime that this government won’t even talk about.

There is one factor linked to sixty per cent of all people arrested.

What is that factor? Can the government members tell us? Can the government even say the word that is common to the majority of all crime in New Zealand?

It isn’t gangs and it isn’t P.

Both of those are serious threats and need to be dealt with. And if you are serious about them, you should logically be much more serious about a much more common cause of crime.

What is that common factor? It’s alcohol.

Sixty percent of everyone arrested is under the influence of alcohol at the time they commit the offence for which they are arrested.

Sixty percent. No other factor comes close.

So, because this government won’t even mention that alcohol is involved in most crime, it won’t do anything about sixty percent of all offending.

If you pass this Bill before you have dealt with the low hanging fruit, before you have dealt with the biggest factor in crime of all - then you are not serious about crime. You are joking and your raised expectations will ultimately disappoint and be held up to ridicule.

The National Government made a big issue out of crime in Opposition.

I am not going to quickly forget their pledges to seriously reduce the rate of violent crime.

They promised they would get elected and put an immediate end to the kind of violent crime that terrorised shop keepers in South Auckland.

Remember those shopkeepers? Remember the Indian community terrorised by attacks in those neighbourhoods?

How much neighbourhood crime is linked to the sudden proliferation of liquor outlets? How much is linked to the low drinking age that lets teenagers buy as much alcohol as they want on nearly every corner?

Will this Bill tackle that? No. Alcohol abuse is not even mentioned in it.

The government made the promises. The Government promised to significantly reduce violent crime.

Having raised expectations, this government is now accountable if it doesn’t deliver.

The government should not be culpable for violent crime. But the Government made it that way.

The government promised the New Zealand public it could make a difference.

Here is item number four on National’s Blueprint for change in August last year:

“National knows New Zealanders are sick of worrying about the surging levels of violent crime in this country. We are not going to put up with it. So National will launch a full-frontal attack on gangs and the "P" trade they support.”

Ok, so they are passing the law they said they would. Good on them - but now the acid is on Simon Power. The acid is on John Key: This is National’s full frontal attack on gangs and the P trade, and if it doesn’t deal effectively to the surging levels of crime National knows New Zealanders are sick of - then National is accountable.

Mr Key said it over and over again. He said it on stages, and he said it in tv debates - he said the major problem is gangs, because gangs make P, and P is the major cause of crime. So he said, when this government took office, it would pass this Bill, and violent crime would be significantly reduced.

I hope he’s right.

I hope this Bill really does make a huge difference, and that is why I’m voting for it, and it’s why the Opposition is voting for it.

We absolutely want this Bill to be successful.

But actually, I am not naive enough to make the promise Mr Key made, and National candidates made up and down the country - that they would significantly reduce crime.

Here is what Mr Key said in his speech on 29 January last year:

“Violent youth crime is at an all-time high. Robbery is up. Grievous assaults are up. Aggravated robbery is up. Young criminals are graduating from petty crime to more serious crime; unexploded time-bombs on a fast-track to Paremoremo.”

So is this Bill going to make a major difference to that?

I hope so. But don’t hold your breath. Mr Key wildly overpromised and now National is under-delivering.

Can I ask the government members here in the chamber - will violent crime be significantly reduced as of the date of the passing of this Bill?

Will that be virtually the end of it in the headlines?

Are they confident now they have fixed crime?

Or do they still want to tell New Zealanders they will significantly reduce violent crime as they promised. I wish they would. I wish this Bill had that effect.

But every violent crime from now on shows the failure of the key promise of this government - that they could stamp out violent crime by targetting gangs -- raised expectations far beyond what they can deliver and thus failed the communities they have promised to protect.

Comment on agriculture - February 2009

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-02-12T14:05:25+13:00

One of the first effects has been to reduce the value of our dollar. Eventually that will increase New Zealand dollar incomes, but in the short term it pushes up the cost of fuel. Imports of capital equipment cost more. The lower dollar provides some relief – especially in some of our most squeezed industries – but over the long haul a lower currency is no basis to build genuine long term prosperity.

At the same time that the dollar has been falling, commodity prices have also fallen. Consumers everywhere are closing their wallets. Businesses are reducing inventory and holding back from introducing new product lines. So the prices we can achieve for some of our staple exports are falling. I’m confident about our primary exports in the long haul, but in the near future, times will still be tough.

Panicked politicians and activists in some areas are becoming more protectionist. Even the celebrity cook, Jamie Oliver, is calling on British consumers to boycott meat that isn’t “local”.

For producers like farmers and other agri-businesses, credit is tightening. Though interest rates are coming down, banks and other lenders are much more conservative. (Some of them needed to be.) I’ve read of businesses finding it hard to get letters of credit. Who is interested in letters of credit from banks that might be gone by the time products are landed on foreign wharves? So producers are faced with the grim risk of putting their goods on ships with no guarantee they will be paid.

We can’t change the world economy but we can support our own businesses to position themselves during this downturn and to emerge even stronger when world economic growth turns up again. For example, more government investment in research and development at this time would ensure we don’t lose ground when farmers themselves are under pressure over costs. The two billion dollar New Zealand Fast Forward fund to invest in the future of our primary industries would have helped strengthen the economy. But the National government has made a priority out of scrapping it.

When the National Government unveiled a business tax package recently, I looked closely to see what would be there for our farmers and to invest in the future. Unfortunately, against a backdrop of global cataclysm, there wasn’t much. For example, there was a small rule change to make Disputes Tribunal claims easier, but I wonder how many farms that is going to make a difference to.

The $120 million a year of new spending in the package gives back less than a third of the increased tax on innovation that the National Government introduced under urgency just before Christmas, when they cancelled the Labour-Progressive government’s tax rebate for spending on research and development.

Words like ‘farm’, agriculture’ or even ‘exports’ weren’t mentioned in the business tax package. Our primary industries make up two thirds of our export earnings, and they didn’t get anything in the business tax package. When John Key wrote the Speech from the Throne, agriculture didn’t get a mention then, either. I wonder if the money market dealers running the National Government even realise that farms are businesses.

If we are going to weather the global economic crisis we need to strengthen our agricultural sector.

Small policies that tinker round the edge won’t do it.

National asked to support vulnerable Christchurch tenants

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-02-16T13:40:40+13:00

There could be help for Christchurch tenants fighting Council-imposed rent increases if National picks up a proposal for government assistance that was prepared for the previous Labour-Progressive Government, Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.

Tenants have successfully opposed the rent increase in court, but the Christchurch city’s incumbent right-wing majority has now signalled it could again try to substantially increase rents or even abandon social housing altogether - leaving two and a half thousand vulnerable tenants with nowhere to live unless central government steps in.

Jim Anderton says the government should step in to help because it would have to pick up some of the costs of a rent increase anyway, including through increased Accommodation Supplement payments.

He today released a business case he sent to the previous finance minister Michael Cullen on behalf of Labour and Progressive Christchurch MPs after a thorough review of the Council’s plan to raise rents to help pay for refurbishment of the Council’s social housing.

The business case was sent by Jim Anderton and Labour MPs Ruth Dyson, Lianne Dalziel, Clayton Cosgrove and Tim Barnett. It sought a net government investment of $29 million over ten years. It would have reduced the rent increase from 24 per cent to ten per cent and allowed for the replacement of over three hundred homes and a continuous refurbishment programme.

He also released Treasury advice on the report that says it should be considered as part of Budget 2009. The Treasury response says there is no evidence that the Christchurch City Council ever approached the government itself to ask for the necessary funds.

Jim Anderton says the Council’s behaviour has created a huge problem, and it’s now up to the National government to help tenants out.

“Council never approached the government before it announced the rent increase. Its threats to abandon social housing are very worrying for some of the city’s most vulnerable residents.

“The net cost to the government of stepping in to help is not unreasonable if it is looked at in the context of a twenty year programme of investment to help very vulnerable people. Over that period, the net cost to the government of $29 million averages around $1.5 million per year.

“The National government has indicated it wants to shoulder some of the costs to local body ratepayers of providing social services, and it has also indicated a willingness to see housing expanded as a response to the global financial crisis. One obvious solution is to assist the council directly to make this investment.

“I hope Gerry Brownlee, as the senior Christchurch government MP, will take over the role of advocating within his government for vulnerable Christchurch city tenants, and I have sent the file on the work done so far to him,” Jim Anderton said.

Sentencing Bill won’t reduce crime.

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-02-18T13:38:05+13:00

The promise to significantly reduce violent crime won’t be kept, because the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill introduced to parliament today won’t make the difference promised, Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.

He told Parliament the Government would be accountable if there were more violent killings after Government Ministers announced ‘Under this Bill there will be no more William Bells.’

“Ministers responsible for this Bill know it will not deliver the results they have promised,” Jim Anderton said.

The Bill’s Explanatory Note says any impact on prison numbers from this Bill “will not be felt for at least 10 years.” When the government announced it was getting tough with criminals it didn’t say that ‘getting tough’ meant doing nothing for ten years and a total of 70 extra prison beds after twenty years.

“New Zealand has a serious problem with violent crime. A recent survey showed only 43% of New Zealanders feel completely satisfied about their security and safety in their own home. New Zealanders are sick of crime and want to see criminals punished. That’s why when my colleague Matt Robson was corrections minister he started building more prisons than any corrections minister in history. So I support putting violent offenders away and my party helped put the prisons in place to do it.

“But this Bill does nothing to reduce violence. It doesn’t lock anyone up until they have already committed a serious violent offence. It doesn’t prevent crime.

“If you want to reduce crime, the solutions are much more complex. It starts with reducing at risk behaviour, it continues to getting tough with young hoons on their way to a life of crime. And it includes addressing the major risk factors in prisons, like alcohol and illiteracy - because when over 90 per cent of criminals have an alcohol or drug problem, then you aren’t going to rehabilitate them and turn them away from a life of crime unless you fix those.

“We owe it to New Zealanders to get tough on crime. This bill does not. This Bill will lead to perverse results. This Bill will not deliver National’s promise to significantly reduce crime.”

Background: Alternatives to the Sentencing Bill

International evidence shows that changing the rate of imprisonment doesn't affect the crime rate. For example, Finland cut the number of crimes punishable by imprisonment. The prison population fell. The crime rate didn't change. Some states of the US went the other way and put offenders away for much longer terms. The prison population began growing enormously. The crime rate didn't change.

The point is that the likelihood of going to prison doesn't seem to affect whether or not offenders go out and commit crimes. So if we want to reduce crime, then there must be something else we can do to keep the public safe.

Young people who are at risk of becoming serious adult offenders are recognisable with increasing certainty as newborns, as school entrants, as young offenders and as early adult offenders.

Each of the main risk factors increases the probability of anti-social behaviour by four to ten times. The key risk factors are where the mother is:
-          Young;
-          Has little education;
-          Is from a disadvantaged family where she received little care or attention;
-          Is substance dependent;
-          Is socially isolated; and
-          Has a number of male partners.
This background doesn't condemn a child to adult offending. But it increases the risk. If all of these factors appear together, the risk increases many hundreds of times.

So the first step is to reduce the number of highest risk births.
We can do that by working with young women who fit the profile and who are in the social welfare and justice systems.

They need sexual health services - teaching them about contraception and avoiding exploitation. Teaching young women about the advantages of delaying child bearing until they are settled, mature and suitable support is available. The cost for each intervention is as little as about $500. The benefit to cost ratio has been assessed as fifty to one.

We need to back that up with more support for high-risk new mothers.
Family Start programmes are a good example of the sort of assistance that can be provided. Each intervention costs about $3000. The benefit to cost ratio is assessed at twenty-five to one.

And then we can move to children as they enter school.
Teachers have long been able to identify many of the school entrants that they believe will end up as adult offenders. For example an intervention for a five year old who is aggressive and defiant is estimated to cost about $5000-$10,000 per case with a success rate of 70%. The same behaviour at the age of 25 years costs $30-40,000 and has a success rate of only 20%.
Earliest possible intervention works best and costs less.

Children who are at risk of progressing to serious adult offending get easier to identify between the ages of ten and fifteen.
That is when they begin their offending career. The single most powerful indicator of a trajectory to serious adult offending is early repeat offending as a child.

The obvious risk factors include failure at school, substance abuse, deviant friends and a family that has problems - poor supervision, criminal parents and child abuse.

The remedies that work are fairly simple:
-          Re-entry to school, with some incentive for doing well;
-          Better parenting
-          A complete ban on alcohol and drug use
-          New social activities and friends.

Working with these kids to prevent them moving on to serious adult offending would mean intervention with about two thousand kids a year, at a cost of about $7-15,000 each.

If one in four of them moves on to a lifetime of offending without the intervention, and one in three interventions actually work, then the benefit-cost ratio is about 36-1.

We want to increase use of Day Reporting Centres.
They give the kids job skills and life skills; and help to place them in jobs;

More than half of the teenagers who enter the adult justice system are re-convicted within one year of ending their sentence. About 80 or 90% are re-convicted within five years.

Dangerous teenage offenders who commit violent and sexual offences would still go to prison. For the others an offence will still result in the appropriate penalty.

Attendance at Day Reporting Centres would be compulsory five days a week for six months, and might be accompanied by night curfews and electronic monitoring. The units cost about $10-20,000 per offender to run, with a benefit to cost return of 37-1.

Corrections Department research indicates the measures in this package could eventually reduce imprisonable offending by around 17% a year.

The earlier you intervene, the more effective the result, but the harder it is to work out where the intervention is needed. The preventive measures we support are not quick fixes, but they are effective. They will take enormous co-ordination across a number of government agencies - Corrections, health, CYFS, education and others.

Sentencing and Parole Bill

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-02-18T13:29:36+13:00

Jim Anderton’s Speech to Parliament on the Sentencing and Parole Bill.

I have always believed that one of the most important things we can do in this House is to bear witness to the truth - to stand up and tell the truth about what we know to be true, despite the consequences.

What I know about this Bill, is that it is bound to play well as a popular measure, but that it is a fraud.
It will not deliver on the promises that have been made for it.

I believe the ministers responsible for this Bill know it will not deliver the results they have promised.

I believe they are pushing it through knowing it will not end violent crime, as they promised; knowing it will not make a significant difference as they promised.

The government has promised this Bill will ensure "there will be no more Williams Bells.”

That was the statement Rodney Hide made in his press release. Here is word for word what he said: “Under this Bill there will be no more William Bells.”

That statement is fraudulent. There will be more violent men who kill after this Bill has been passed. There will be lots more.

The promise the minister made in his press release will come back to haunt him and he will regret it.

The evidence this Bill won’t work is spelt out in the Explanatory Note to the Bill.

The Bill says any impact on prison numbers from this Bill “will not be felt for at least 10 years.” I didn’t read that in the Ministers’ press release. I didn’t read in the minister’s statement that ten years after this Bill is passed, not one single extra person will be locked up.

I read that they were going to “get tough” with violent criminals. That’s what John Key promised.

He didn’t say that getting tough meant waiting ten years before one single person was locked up.

I did read John Key saying “New Zealanders are sick of waiting for promises on law and order to be delivered."

Well they’ll be waiting a long time for this one to be delivered.

I read John Key saying the last government took nine years to deliver - so he’s going one better and waiting ten!

After 20 years, the Bill says, an extra 70 prison beds will be needed.

So let’s add that up - the government says this Bill will end violent crime.

And it says it will end violent crime by locking up a total of seventy people between ten and twenty years from now. That’s about seven people a year.

That’s what National thinks is the extent of the violent crime problem in this country - seven violent crimes a year. It’s a nonsense.

This government has vastly oversold its ability to make a difference.

I remember in 1990 National got elected by saying it was going to end violent crime back then, too.

I remember John Banks saying he was going to get tough and put an end to murder and violence and pillage.

And one month later this country witnessed the tragedy of Aramoana. That was the worst mass killing in our history.

It turned out then that violent crime is a lot more complex than the cheap headlines National wants to get.

It will turn out the same this time. I know that. National knows that.

This country has a serious problem with violent crime.

I saw research this week that showed only 43% of New Zealanders feel completely satisfied about their own security and safety in their own home.

And therefore we owe it to New Zealanders to do something real about about violence.

But this Bill does nothing to reduce violence.

You don’t get locked up until the violent crime has already been committed.

This government is soft on crime because it won’t do anything to stop the crimes being committed in the first place.

The members opposite say they will reduce crime by locking up the most serious violent offenders.

But you don’t lock them up until they have already committed a serious violent offence.

It doesn’t lock them up before they commit it.

So what this Bill is really about is not reducing crime at all. It is about revenge. It is about denouncing criminals.

Now I actually agree there is a place for denuncuation in criminal sentencing.That’s why when my colleague Matt Robson was corrections minister he started building more prisons than any corrections minister in history.

So I support putting violent offenders away and my party helped to put the prisons in place to do it.

But you ought to be frank about what you are doing.

If the object of a Bill is to denounce crime, then say that - don’t come in here pretending that the Bill is going to reduce violent crime. This Bill isn’t, you know it isn’t, and that makes the very basis of this Bill a fraud, and it insults this House.

It insults the intelligence of members.

The object of this Bill is to pretend the government is getting tough.

If I’m generous I would say the object of this Bill might be to punish offenders more.

But I do not believe the object of this Bill is to reduce offending.

I actually put out a widely ignored and very detailed plan for reducing crime before the last election.

We went through every measure that expert research and expert policy shows makes a long term difference over time.

It starts with reducing at risk behaviour, it continues to getting tough with young hoons on their way to a life of crime. And it includes addressing the major risk factors in prisons, like alcohol and illiteracy.

Because when over 90 per cent of criminals have an alcohol or drug problem, then you aren’t going to rehabilitate them and turn them away from a life of crime unless you fix those.

And for all of those proven and efficient policies, the best estimate of the difference it would make was this - in the long run, it would reduce crime by about 17 per cent. That is about the most you can promise.

It is a long way short of what the government has promised for this Bill. They promised an end to violent crime - and now they are accountable.

We have heard a lot of songs about accountability from the government.

Now they are accountable for their promise to make a significant reduction in violent crime.

They are accountable for their promise their will be no more William Bells. God help them if there is one more after this.

So if it won’t make much difference to crime, what difference will this Bill make?

We happen to know the answer, because other countries have tried the three strikes and you are out approach.

It always results in huge anomalies. It always results in greater injustices. When you take away sentencing discretion, you get bad sentencing.

Let me give you one example: Imagine a woman who living with a violent thug with a record, and getting the bash.

What are the chances that she will now be even less likely to leave? What are the chances she will be much less likely to report a man when she knows it would mean that he would be locked up for life.

Those are decisions victims make all the time - and the truth is this Bill will ensure some women in exactly that position suffer grievously because of the horrifying dilemmas it will create. What is compassionate about that?

We owe it to New Zealanders to get tough on crime. This bill does not.

This Bill pretends to get tough.

This Bill will lead to perverse results.

This Bill will not deliver National’s promise to significantly reduce crime.

And I cannot support its vile cynicism.

Why is National guaranteeing FAI Finance?

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-02-25T13:28:13+13:00

A taxpayer guarantee for a finance company owned by Hanover has Wigram’s Progressive MP Jim Anderton puzzled. The government has given a Crown guarantee to FAI Finance - wholly owned by Hanover and, through a network of companies, by Mark Hotchin and Eric Watson.

“The absolutely top policy guidelines specified by Treasury for considering a Crown guarantee are ‘the maintenance of public confidence in New Zealand’s financial system; and maintaining the confidence of general public depositors in New Zealand financial institutions.’ It is not clear how a guarantee for Hanover companies fits that guideline,” Jim Anderton said.

The Treasury says factors that should be taken into account in giving a guarantee include the size of the entity and related party exposure, the business practice of the entity, the ‘good character’ and business acumen of the entity and “The track record of the entity.”

Last year Hanover froze over half a billion of investors money and investors approved a recovery plan in December.

In June last year, the latest date recorded in its prospectus issued this month, FAI had assets in loans worth a total of $28,582,000, at an average interest rate of 21.63%. This sum included $15,119,000 due in 2-5 years. Investors had $18,542,000 in FAI at an average interest rate of 9.9%. Among those entitled to their money back, $6,468,000 was on call, $7,514,000 due in 6-12 months, and $382,000 due in more than two years.

The Crown receives a fee for the guarantee, which could be worth as little as $28,000 a year.

Jim Anderton said a Crown guarantee to Hanover is a strange response to the financial crisis.

“The point of the guarantee is to prevent the entire deposit base of New Zealand fleeing. But there is still room for non-guaranteed businesses that should be able to charge an interest rate reflecting their risk. Hanover is the sort of company that the market can make its own decisions about.

“Mr Hotchin and Mr Watson appear to be affluent men and it is hard to see why they shouldn’t give the guarantee from their own resources instead of those of the Crown.”

Who owns FAI Finance?
Companies Office records, 24 February 2009

FAI Finance
Directors: Mark Hotchin
Greg Muir
Shares: 15,766,588 - all held by Hanover Finance

Hanover Finance
Directors: Mark Hotchin
Greg Muir
Shares: 71,651-596

37,835,596 held by Hanover Financial Services

33,815,000 held by Hanover Capital

Hanover Capital
Directors:       Mark Hotchin
Greg Muir
Shares: 5,000,000 all owned by Hanover Financial Services

Hanover Financial Services
Directors:       Mark Hotchin
Greg Muir
Shares: 13,303,620 all owned by Hanover Group.

Hanover Group
Directors:       Mark Flay
Mark Hotchin
Greg Muir
Eric Watson
Shares: 207,327,000 all owned by Hanover Group Holdings

Hanover Group Holdings
Directors:       Mark Flay
Mark Hotchin
Eric Watson
Shares: 87,871,057
Of these:

77,279,174 owned by Hotchin Investments.
10,591,883 owned by Forefront Investments.

Hotchin Investments
Directors: Mark Hotchin
Dwayne McGorman
Shares: 39,500,000 all owned by Hotchin Trustee Ltd

Hotchin Trustee Ltd
Directors: John Radley
Tony Thomas
Shares: 1000, all owned by the directors (= trustees).

Forefront Investments
Directors: Leslie Archer
Mark Flay
Eric Watson
Shares: 596,933;
Of these:

5000 owned by Eric Watson
591,933 owned by Peak NZ

Peak NZ
Directors:       Bruce Armitage
Don Stanway
Eric Watson
Shares: 100, all owned by Foreshore Investments

Foreshore Investments
Directors:       Leslie Archer
Mark Flay
Shares: 100, all owned by Cire Trust

Cire Trust
Directors:       Mark Flay
Eric Watson
Shares: 100, all owned by Eric Watson.

FAI’s loans/deposits
FAI Prospectus 7, registered 9 February 2009.

At 20 June 2008, FAI had assets in loans worth a total of $28,582,000, at an average interest rate of 21.63%.

This sum included $15,119,000 due in 2-5 years.

At the same date it had deposit liabilities (i.e. Money that investors have invested in FAI securities) 0f $18,542,000, at an average interest rate of 9.9%.

This included 6,468,000 on call, $7,514,000 due in 6-12 months, and $382,000 due in more than two years.

Piggies raid bank

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-02-25T13:26:32+13:00

John Key’s failure to give an assurance about the Superannuation Fund means he cannot honour his pre-election promise not to change superannuation, Wigram’s Progressive MP Jim Anderton says.

“Raiding the piggy bank today means there is less in the piggy bank when it is needed.

“If the Super Fund is reduced in any way, then our future ability to pay for superannuation at existing levels is reduced. If it is cut then significantly higher taxes in future than we would otherwise have are inevitable, or alternatively reduced levels of superannuation in the future will be the certain result.

“There is no easy option. National makes pledges about super today, but that is meaningless because they are setting up super to be cut in the future. Future superannuation will not be paid for out of thin air. Whatever is taken out of the Fund today by way of ‘freezes’ or ‘reduced contributions’ is money not available to pay for super in the future.

“Cut the fund today, and the payout will be cut in future.

“National was repeatedly challenged to come clean on this before the election and it repeatedly gave an undertaking that superannuation would be unchanged.

"I specifically warned that National would use ‘changed circumstances’ as an excuse - but circumstances always change. Once again, just like it did last time in government, National is breaking its promise and finding a creative new way to break its promise not to cut super.”

Kiwibank continues to prove itself a winner

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-02-26T13:25:33+13:00

Ownership of Kiwibank is paying off in a big way, both for the people of New Zealand and for the government as its shareholder, Wigram’s Progressive MP Jim Anderton says.

“Combining its profit and its tax paid, Kiwibank is generating almost enough income for the government in one year to equal the $80 million it cost to set up.”

Kiwibank today declared an after-tax profit of $25.8 million for the last six months of last year. It also paid tax of $12 million.

“Kiwibank’s deposits are soaring because New Zealanders can see it offers a better deal than they would have if we didn’t have our own bank. Kiwibank has an AA- credit rating.

“And Kiwibank’s lending is soaring too, because it can offer lower interest rates.

“It’s great that we have our own bank performing so well at a time of international financial crisis. We don’t have to be dependent on overseas financial markets. Those markets right now look like the dog that critics claimed that Kiwibank would be.

“Kiwibank is, after only six years of operating, worth more than NZ Post. Its profitability is steadily rising. Kiwibank is continuing to prove itself a winner.”

Comment on agriculture

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-03-04T13:24:03+13:00

Response to Nelson-Marlborough Farming magazine

New Zealand exports around twenty billion dollars a year worth of food products. We import food products worth less than three billion dollars – a fraction of our exports.

That’s why I was disappointed to read a call in the February Nelson-Marlborough Farming for measures that would be seen in other countries as a form of protectionism against food imports. [“Kiwis are gobbling foreign food,” Page 6.]

We can argue to and fro all we like about whether mandatory country of origin labelling really is protectionism. But what is indisputable is that other countries perceive mandatory labelling as a protectionist measure.

It’s true some major markets require mandatory labelling - but we oppose them doing so. They do it to keep our products out. If we then impose mandatory country of origin labelling on them, we will have to drop our opposition to those countries doing it.
That will hurt our exports. It will hurt New Zealand farmers.

Our horticulture industry earns about $2.2 billion a year from exports - around half of its total turnover. That is a lot to put at risk from mandatory labelling.

Nor is horticulture being increasingly hurt as we import more from overseas - our horticulture exports have grown ten fold - ten-fold! - in the last twenty years.

I agree with people who say we can achieve a premium price by labelling our products New Zealand made. And there is absolutely nothing to stop that happening now. But we might risk that potential premium if we introduced a meaningless label like the one across the Tasman: “Made from Australian and imported products.” That is the labelling we would get if we brought in mandatory country of origin labelling for food.

I don’t share the aims of people who say we should be self-sufficient in our own food. We are good at growing dairy, meat and a huge range of horticultural products. We are not so good at growing rice and bananas. I cannot see the sense in shifting some of our farms from dairy to rice paddies. It makes much more sense to sell as much dairy as we can to the world and buy the rice we need with the proceeds - along with cars, fuel, computers and many other products that our food exports help us to buy.

Nor do I agree with those who say this policy amounts to the policy of the ‘hard capitalistic right,’ as I was accused of.

Agricultural protectionism punishes poor countries more than it punishes rich ones. If there is one thing I am against, it is poverty, and I support policies that reduce poverty. Opening up global agriculture will hugely benefit some of the world’s poorest people.

It so happens that promoting more trade in agriculture not only reduces poverty, it helps create a lot more jobs, higher incomes and more successful businesses here in New Zealand, too. I’m in favour of that as well.

A recent report showed trade barriers cost the average food grower in New Zealand $25,000 a year in income. Non-tariff trade barriers might cost even more. Once we start advocating for them here, we would be advocating for even greater penalties on our industry.

Market access is hard gained and easily lost. Our focus should be on growing ways to get our products into more countries - not on ways to keep other country’s products out.

McCully to return to pork barrel NZAid

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-03-04T13:22:36+13:00

Deputy leader of the Progressive Party Matt Robson and the Minister in 2002 who with Phil Goff set up NZAID slammed Foreign Minister McCully’ s proposal for aid to be part of "NZInc" and for NZAID to be "folded back into MFAT".

"He should just set up a Department of Bribes and be done with it said Matt Robson.

"Being part of MFAT was exactly the problem with NZ development aid before we separated it out into a specialist division."

"It was staffed by junior diplomats on their way up or older diplomats on their way out. There was no specialist department. The programmes were in a muddle. We gave aid to two super military powers- China and India. Why? To peddle influence in their capitals not to help the poorest people. It is to that obscene policy that McCully is obviously attracted.

"Phil Goff as Foreign Minister and I as the Minister responsible for Aid deliberately separated out development aid from Foreign Affairs as it was largely being used as a fund used for New Zealand’s foreign policy aims not to help the development, in a systematic way, of the world’s poorest policy.

"Under National aid money was used by Foreign Affairs to win the support and votes of tyrants like Suharto of Indonesia and the King of Tonga. It was used to give retirement jobs like the head of the Commonwealth to ex National MPs like Don McKinnon.

"NZ Aid was a progressive step for NZ ," concluded Matt Robson.

Nats’ ACC cuts hit elderly, poor and farmers

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-03-05T13:21:22+13:00

National’s cuts to ACC and privatisation will mean vicious price hikes and service cuts for the elderly, beneficiaries and farmers, Wigram’s progressive MP Jim Anderton says.

He says new charges for some ACC services will mean low income people can’t afford treatment. Competing ACC providers will mean higher premiums for farmers. And many working people will be left without cover when private providers fail.

“If National charges for some ACC treatment, some low income people won’t be able to afford to pay. That means working people on lower wages, and especially beneficiaries and superannuitants, won’t be able to get treatment if they are hurt in an accident.

“National’s plans mean no rehabilitation for your elderly mum if she falls over in a shop unless someone can cough up for the costs of treatment.

“It is disgusting for the government to save ACC costs by blocking physio and rehabilitation services for elderly New Zealanders. How would a pensioner afford a $50 a week physio fee? Most of them paid their premiums for much of their working lives and national is contemplating increasing their costs at the same time it is cutting tax for the most affluent New Zealanders.

“National’s plans to bring in competition and privatise ACC will put up prices. A report from the previous National-Liberal Government in Australia, comparing accident compensation in Australia and New Zealand in 2004, showed levies in Australia’s competitive market were twice as expensive as those in New Zealand for the primary sector.

“A competitive scheme could result in a levy hike of as much as 250 per cent for rural people like farmers.

“Our ACC administration cost is about a third of Australian schemes.

“In Victoria – where two companies competed so seriously they ran each other out of business – they competed by underfunding the tail. In other words, in a competitive system, companies can go broke and leave liabilities for long term claims unpaid. What happens to people needing long term care for their accidents when the provider goes broke?”

It was all about privatising jails

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-03-09T13:19:32+13:00

The big mouth behaviour of the Corrections Minister has been exposed by the State Services Commissioner’s report on Barry Matthews, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.

“The report confirms mainly that Judith Collins is not equipped for a tough job.

“And it exposes the campaign to vilify a government department was really a cynical campaign to privatise prison management.

“Ms Collins swaggered around leaving no one under any doubt that she would force the Corrections department CEO to step down. For example, the Herald - citing Ms Collins’ ‘ruthless combination of raw power and tactical guile’ - declared:

She has made Matthews’ position utterly untenable. And she left the State Services Commission - as Matthews’ employer - no option but to remove him, assuming he does not resign beforehand.

Jim Anderton says the pressure on Mr Matthews to go was always an overreaction to the Auditor’s report.

“Among the specific, highlighted examples the Auditor cited were failures to fill out reports and inconsistency in classification of the illness of paroled offenders. These procedural issues needed to be fixed, but it was unjustified and disproportionate to say they amounted to a case for immediate dismissal. That was always going to be a wrong judgement - exactly what the State Services inquiry has found.

“Ms Collins should have known that there was no case to support the dismissal of the CEO of her department. Either she didn’t know and isn’t up to the job, or she did know and was cynical in the way she used the issue.”

Speech Notes: Launch of Wool to Weta

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-03-10T13:16:17+13:00

Launch of Wool to Weta
Transforming New Zealand’s Culture & Economy

6.00PM Tuesday, 10 March 2009

I would like to start out by congratulating Professor Callaghan on this book and on promoting the topic of economic development.

This week I saw a comment from Paul. He was responding to a reporter who asked him whether he would want to be called Sir Paul. The question raises some issues similar to those in this book:

The way we honour success and the way we create it are on the move.

We used to be a country that styled itself as a colony of Britain. We sold almost all of our commodity products to one country. Most of our exports came from a single product: Wool.

We are changing.

We are becoming a modern vibrant country proud of our own creativity and talent.

Today, wool exports no longer comprise half our export eanrings.

Today, wool’s proportion of everything we earn overseas has fallen to just two per cent.

And though there are some in New Zealand who are clinging to the vestiges of our ancient british past, we are becoming a different a culture too.

We are more integrated with the rest of the world.

We are creating value more by ideas than by bulk.

But this is a process of transformational change.

Change seems always to come with a couple of steps forward and one or two back.

So I want to suggest to you, that just as the decision about whether to be Professor Callaghan or Sir Paul is a choice we have to make...we also have economic choices to make.

One such choice is whether we want to make more progress toward a more science-based economy, more use of ideas and a more modern way of celebrating success.

I congratulate Professor Callaghan for putting these issues on the table.

This book makes a contribution to our awareness and understanding of what’s at stake.

It is no small coincidence that Paul is the Alan MacDiarmid professor of Physical Sciences at Victoria.

I knew Alan MacDiarmid. His brother, Rod, was a political colleague of mine for many years, and he introduced us when Alan came back to New Zealand for a visit.

Alan MacDiarmid was a passionate and persuasive advocate for the ideas behind this book.

He believed in the power of science to transform our economy.

He believed in the power of ideas, knowledge and research to improve the lives and wellbeing of New Zealanders.

And he understood that it takes a policy commitment to bring science and business together.

It doesn’t ‘just happen’ on its own.

If it did, it would have happened by now.

But it has happened yet - at least, it hasn’t happened enough.

If you open this book and turn to the introduction, there are charts that put in stark perspective the performance of the New Zealand economy relative to other countries in our modern history:

They show we began a decline in the seventies.

We entered a precipitous decline through the late seventies, and all of the eighties, and much of the nineties.

We have never really closed the gap, even though for the last decade we stopped falling behind.

And this is not because we are lazy. It’s not because we don’t work hard.

We work as many hours as any country.

I find one thing very striking about these graphs: They are the same ones I have been using in speeches and presentations for a decade.

And the central point is the same - that we don’t have enough businesses in New Zealand that are making very large returns per employee.

In most developed countries, companies that can make net revenue of a million dollars per employee are common. In New Zealand those figures are virtually unknown.

We don’t have enough high value, high skill, high return companies because we don’t have enough science and innovation lifting the productivity of our economy.

Not enough of our economy is based on ideas and on research.

It’s easy for us to fall into the trap of thinking that this means there is a problem with our existing industries.

I don’t share that view.

Our agriculture, for example, is probably the most scientifically advanced of all our industries.

Many New Zealanders wrongly believe our competitive advantage in agriculture is our climate. But there are many countries with a temperate climate like ours.

Our agricultural excellence lies in our decades upon decades of investment in science.

Over the years we have spent billions - probably tens of billions of dollars - on agricultural science.

This has led to products that are of immensely high value.
I have been to a business where they extract a medical supplement from milk and sell small vials of the extract for thousands of dollars each.

The value is in the science. In the Knowledge. In the Understanding.

Compare the value of that vial to the value of the same weight of dairy produce from New Zealand a few decades ago.

One of the lessons from this example is that our economy can change far more rapidly than we sometimes realise. Another lesson is that science is behind many of the changes.

The decline in the dominance of wool among our export industries is one example.

At the turn of the century, economists pointed out that the United States exported the same weight of goods in 2000 as it had exported in 1900.

The value, however, had increased thousands of times.

The difference in value was created by science and ideas.

I’ve asked Paul Callaghan why he thinks we aren’t better at using science in our economy. I’ve put the same question to dozens of business people whom I have met around New Zealand.

No one says it’s because we aren’t smart enough - Kiwis are enormously creative and talented.

I often tell the story of visiting Singapore and meeting the economic development minister there. He said to me, ‘you are lucky in New Zealand because you have so much creative talent. When we want that creativity, we have to import it for you.’

We are remote and isolated in New Zealand and that has meant we have the freedom to try things out. Necessity has driven a lot of innovation.

Lord Rutherford said, ‘in New Zealand, we don’t have much money so we have to think.’

So its not lack of talent.

If we want more innovation and science in our industry then we need the leadership and co-ordination that will create it.

Everywhere you go around New Zealand and put the ideas in this book to businesspeople, and to scientists, they will agree with you.

They will say, ‘yes we need more of this.’

But we don’t see more of it.

The vision of more innovation and a vision for the leadership to create more innovative companies is not universally shared.

It is a choice.

Uncomfortable as it is for many people - especially in business - Support for science has become a fault line between differing political philosophies.

There was a very public example of this divide between pro- and anti-science politics only this morning in the United States.

President Obama this morning signed a law allowing stem cell research to proceed in the US. At his press conference he repudiated the previous President’s opposition to stem cell research in the US, saying the distinction between science and morality in this case was false.

Politicians should never get into the position of being anti-science.

We have to harness science, harness research and harness ideas if we are going to improve our living standards and those of our children and future generations.

Supporting more innovation in our businesses is a matter of making some hard choices.

In the last three months in this country, those choices have been made and they have been made against science.

A two billion public-private partnership in scientific research called New Zealand Fast Forward has been cancelled.

That wiped out the largest single investment in science ever made in this country.

A tax credit for research and development worth a billion dollars over three years was canceled.

That was the largest business tax increase in our history.

All this took place without much of a squeak - specifically from the business community itself.

So, as I said at the outset, the forward progress of the New Zealand economy inevitably involves taking steps backwards as well as forwards.

People are entitled to make choices.

And it is up to those of us with a passion and commitment to the power of ideas, to advocate for our vision of a more dynamic and vibrant economy.

I will give you one example that inspires me, and that is relevant to the concerns we all share about the drain from New Zealand of our best and brightest.

It was at the launch of New Zealand Fast Forward here in Wellington about a year ago, when we invited some graduate students from Massey University.

One of the science postgrads who spoke that day was off to the UK to take up a scholarship, and he made an announcement that no one present knew he was going to make: he said the launch of that fund and its potential to finance brilliant, game-changing science in New Zealand had made him change his mind.

He said that when he finished his course in the UK he no longer believed his only chance for a science career would be overseas; He would come back to New Zealand to give it a go. The long term investment we made gave him confidence about a future here, he said.

There will always be brilliant young New Zealanders who go overseas to develop their skills. Alan MacDiarmid was one; Lord Rutherford was another.

Our problem is that we haven’t been able to offer enough of a choice back here. We haven’t been able to use enough of our connections to the world, and of the trails blazed by our best.

And we haven’t brought enough of their innovation into the boardroom, and into the soul of innovative, large scale companies based here.

This book we are launching today has many examples of the brilliance we have available to us.

It has many insights into how we can do better.

It is crucial for us to have this conversation, and I congratulate Paul and the people he spoke to on playing their part in this conversation.

I wish you all the very best in continuing this conversation and in making a real difference to the transformation of New Zealand’s industry.

Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-03-10T13:15:04+13:00

Speech: Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill

I support this Bill.

But I am under no illusions that it needs to go much further if we are to reduce seriously the harm caused by alcohol.

Alcohol causes between one and a half and two and a half billion dollars worth of economic and social harm every year.

It is by far the most damaging drug in this country.

It is the most damaging not because it is the most intrinsically dangerous drug - far from it.

It is the most damaging because it is the most available drug.

And in the recent years when alcohol was made much more available, predictably the harm caused by alcohol has risen as well.

In recent years we have lowered the drinking age - and more young people are being harmed much more often.

We have allowed more widespread alcohol advertising.

We have allowed the sale of liquor in more places for longer hours.

The resulting harm is there to be seen by anyone who cares to look - in the carnage on streets and in an alcohol-fuelled crime wave.

Nothing makes it more obvious that this government has its priorities wrong than its casual attitude to alcohol.

If the government truly wanted to reduce crime, it would make alcohol less available.

If the government truly wanted to reduce the health bill and make New Zealand more productive, it would reduce the availability of alcohol.

The government is so cynical that it comes in here and pronounces grimly about the toll alcohol causes.

But government members are the first to sneer about nanny state when someone tries to fix the problems.

They claim to be anti-crime, but they also sneer and call anyone who tries to reduce crime the ‘fun police.’

So let’s look at what they mean by fun.

In 1999, 500 people were killed on our roads.

By 2007, total road deaths declined to 410.

But the number of road deaths among 15-29 year olds did not fall anywhere near as much.

Last year, if the toll among 15-29 year olds had fallen by the same amount as the general population, there would have been twenty fewer deaths of young New Zealanders.

Twenty.

Twenty people. Twenty young lives.

So why would the toll not have fallen among young people the way it fell among the rest of the population?

It’s because the drinking age was lowered.

In the years prior to 1999 the number of dead drivers who had a blood alcohol level above the legal limit had been tracking down.

Since 1999, when the purchase age was lowered, the number of dead drivers has stopped tracking down.

Because we reduced the age, more young people are being killed and injured.

In 2000 there were 4,079 fifteen to 29 year old car and van drivers involved in injury crashes.

In 2007, there were 6,538 - an increase of sixty percent.

The number of injuries among young people is far greater than the number among the general population.

The research in New Zealand and around the world is clear: There is a direct link between the availability of alcohol and the level of harm caused by alcohol.

Alcohol is an enormous factor in crime.

Between half and three quarters of all police work is associated in some way with alcohol abuse.

Two out of three people the police deal with as offenders have been using alcohol prior to the offence being committed.

So I support the measuresin this Bill to reduce access to alcohol.

And I condemn the people who call it nanny state, or who call anyone voting for this the ‘fun police.’

I condemn anyone who says that a vote for mild restrictions on this dangerous drug is for prohibition.

Sensible control is not prohibition, and pretending they are the same is irresponsible and distorted.

Restricting availability makes a huge difference.

Five or six years ago some members who are now in government bitterly attacked me because I took steps to increase the excise rate charged on alcoholic drinks in the range 14-23% alcohol by volume.

These were drinks euphemistically known as ‘light spirits.’

They were strong drinks that kids were buying and getting smashed on. It was a huge factor in binge drinking.

What did the National Party say then?

Oh boy. I was the fun police. I was the nanny state. It wouldn’t work, they said.

But what happened?

One of the principal manufacturers immediately reduced the alcoholic content of his product from 23% to 13.9%.

There was a decline in the quantities of ‘light alcohol’ drinks released for sale of around 80 percent.

Overall alcohol consumption went down by half a million litres after the excise duty was increased.

What that shows is that we can make a difference.

I support the objectives of this Bill.

I support reducing the availability of alcohol for young people and I support more restrictions on alcohol advertising and availability in the community.

If the government wants to keep the wild promises it has made to seriously reduce crime in New Zealand it had better come back into this House with more measures.

I am not confident it will.

But I support the start being made here.

National Govt has a casual attitude to the harm caused by alcohol abuse

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-03-10T13:13:35+13:00

The government’s casual attitude to alcohol availability shows it has its priorities wrong, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton told parliament on the introduction of the Sale and Supply of Liquor bill.

“Alcohol is an enormous factor in crime. Between half and three quarters of all police work is associated in some way with alcohol abuse. Two out of three people the police deal with as offenders have been using alcohol prior to the offence being committed.

“But government members are the first to sneer about nanny state when someone tries to fix the problems. They claim to be anti-crime, but they also sneer and call anyone who tries to reduce crime the ‘fun police.’

“Alcohol causes between one and a half and two and a half billion dollars worth of economic and social harm every year. It is by far the most damaging drug in this country. It is the most damaging not because it is the most intrinsically dangerous drug - far from it. It is the most damaging because it is the most available drug. And in the recent years when alcohol was made much more available, predictably the harm caused by alcohol has risen as well.”

Last year, if the road toll among 15-29 year olds had fallen by the same amount as the general population, there would have been twenty fewer deaths of young New Zealanders.

In the years prior to 1999 the number of dead drivers who had a blood alcohol level above the legal limit had been tracking down. Since 1999, when the purchase age was lowered, the number of dead drivers has stopped tracking down.

In 2000 there were 4,079 fifteen to 29 year old car and van drivers involved in injury crashes. In 2007, there were 6,538 - an increase of sixty percent. The number of injuries among young people is far greater than the number among the general population.

“Sensible control is not prohibition, and pretending they are the same is irresponsible and distorted. I support reducing the availability of alcohol for young people and I support more restrictions on alcohol advertising and availability in the community,” Jim Anderton said.

Comment on agriculture - March 2009

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-03-12T13:12:14+13:00

ACC costs are as significant for farmers as they are for any self-employed businessperson. Farming has its share of risk, so the premiums can be higher than in many industries.

I think ACC is far better for farmers than a personal liability scheme such as many overseas countries have. Imagine if farmers could be sued for personal injury to anyone who came on their land.

Currently the National government is getting ACC ready to be taken back to the failed system of the nineties, when businesspeople had to wade through bureaucracy to choose an ACC provider best suited to their needs.

Farmers should beware of a competitive ACC system. Costs are likely to rise far more for farmers than for others. It’s estimated that ACC levies for farmers would rise 250%. That’s three and a half times.

In 2004 the then-government of Australia got an independent report prepared on accident compensation costs over there. It found that levies in Australia’s competitive market were twice as expensive as those in New Zealand for the primary sector.

Not only that, but deadweight admin costs in New Zealand are about a third of the level in Australia.

There’s one thing even worse than higher levies – and that is not getting real coverage for your money.

When ACC is replaced by businesses competing with each other, one way they try to offer lower premiums is by reducing the amount they set aside to pay for claims that take a long time to show up.

This happened in Australia: when those claims finally started to come in, they didn’t have enough set aside. They couldn’t raise premiums to make up the shortfall because their customers would buy elsewhere. As a result, the business went under – and who was around to pick up the bill for the injured farmers who had paid their levies? Nobody. They had to pay all over again.

In the meantime, do you wonder what happened to the executives that ran the company into the ground? They probably got knighthoods. No wonder National wants to bring those back too.

A government that is fiddling around with taking ACC back to the failed policies of the nineties is a government that has its priorities wrong.

There is a global economic crisis underway. There is unprecedented risk and opportunity to our agricultural sector from the way our trading partners see climate change. Market opportunities and development of the rural economy at home are much more important than trying to find ways for insurance companies and money market dealers to make a dollar at the expense of farmers.

Use power company profits to reduce winter power bills

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-03-12T13:10:56+13:00

Strong profit increases in the state-owned power companies should be returned to consumers to help with winter power bills, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.

He says low income households could be given $200 toward winter heating costs and power companies would still contribute as much to the government than they did last year.

“$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.”

Mighty River Power recorded a profit of $234 million in the last six months of last year.

“That on its own is enough for every household in New Zealand to get a cheque of nearly $200.

“Genesis’ profit for the half year is up by 38 per cent, Transpower’s is up by over a quarter and Meridian is the most profitable of the lot.

“At the same time that the people’s own power companies are booming, the people who own them are heading for a winter when many will struggle to pay the bills. The government should help low income households out by returning some of the huge dividends,” Jim Anderton said.

According to Statistics New Zealand, there are about 1.4 million households. If half were eligible for a $200 winter power rebate, that would cost $140 million. $200 is the estimated winter power bill for a month for the lowest income half of households.

National vote-buying with taxpayers’ money

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-03-12T13:09:00+13:00

Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton is appalled at National’s use of taxpayer money to change electorate office funding so that government MPs get an increase four times greater than Opposition MPs.

“They have noticed that government MPs have bigger electorates by land area than Opposition MPs, because the Opposition tends to hold inner city seats. So they have put a fix in and handed out more money to big electorates. This is a gerrymander.

Not only that but the rules they are putting in place are different for Maori seats. Maori seats qualify for extra funding if they are over 10,000 square kilometres. General seats qualify if they are over 20,000. I can think of no reason why a differentiation should be made.

“National is so brazen it has even left out the biggest electorate in the country – Rongotai.

“The busiest electorate offices in the country are inner city electorates. Imagine the outcry from National if Labour had given busier offices more.

“Most National MPs don’t need extra support staff; they just need to work harder.

“This is the same National Party that claimed to be the very soul of injured innocence when the Electoral Finance Act was changed - yet, whatever your opinion of the EFA, at least everyone was treated the same.

“The National Party has spent all this week reverting to form - backward-looking, mean and getting its priorities all wrong.

“Now National is taking money from higher priority uses to buy the votes of its own supporters. This is exactly the same National party that used to gave Alamein Kopu a nice Beehive office to secure its majority. Turns out that John Key is made of the same stuff.”

Cutting holidays doesn’t stack up with 9-day fortnight

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-03-23T13:05:59+13:00

Cutting holidays doesn’t stack up with 9-day fortnight

It doesn’t make sense for National to remove four weeks minimum annual leave at the same time that it is trying to encourage a nine day fortnight, Progressive leader Jim Anderton says.

Four weeks minimum annual leave was a Progressive Party initiative. It was introduced as a result of a member’s bill introduced by Progressive MP Matt Robson.

“Cutting four weeks’ leave is hypocritical for a government that took 27 days of holidays in its first 100 days in office. What’s good for National MPs ought to be good for working New Zealanders,” Jim Anderton said.

“Calling the axing of holidays a ‘buy-back’ doesn’t change the fact that it cuts the minimum holiday entitlement.

“Thousands of workers who are paid just over the minimum wage will be presented with employment contracts that say they request cash instead of annual leave – and their employers will tell them ‘we will have to cut your pay if you don’t sign.’

“The same employer could then put their hand out for a government subsidy to reduce that worker’s hours by a day a fortnight.

“National is returning to its nasty, anti-worker roots.”

Auckland road tax shows National doesn’t get agriculture

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-03-17T13:05:36+13:00

Taxing rural communities more to pay for Auckland’s roads shows that National doesn’t understand the importance of agriculture for New Zealand’s economy, Opposition agriculture spokesperson Jim Anderton says.

“The whole country can benefit from roads that boost Auckland’s economy; But Auckland can benefit from the economic activity of the rest of the country too. How many farms are in Queen Street? When rural communities have to pay for roads they don’t use, it is a drag on them.

“The decision to make farmers pay more for Auckland roads is a decision by Auckland money market dealers who don’t understand our primary industry.

“It’s fairer to pay for extra projects locally, because local communities can best decide their top priorities and also decide whether the extra cost is worth it.

“The National Government has no new ideas so it’s going back to its old form in government – asking farmers and rural communities to pay more and more, while providing less and less services.”

The future of New Zealand’s overseas development aid

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-03-27T13:03:56+13:00

Remarks at the summit on the future of New Zealand’s overseas development aid

Loaves and Fishes cafe, Wellington.
10.25AM Friday, 27 March 2009.

Progressives have a special interest in this issue.

My colleague Matt Robson, the Progressives deputy leader, was the aid minister responsible for setting up NZ Aid.

I want to talk to you about why poverty should be the focus of our aid and development efforts.

And I particularly want to address the suggestion that we should switch our focus from poverty to economic development.

I used to be minister of economic development. So I have some insight into what is involved in an economic development programme.

Economic development is not something you can impose from the top.

You don’t go into a region, or into an entire country, and say: ‘this is how you are going to develop your economy.’

It doesn’t work. It never works.

I’ve listened to comments saying we should make our aid efforts benefit New Zealand companies.

This is profoundly wrong.

We don’t give aid to benefit New Zealand companies. We do it because we are good global citizens.

New Zealanders have always been good international citizens, prepared to shoulder our burden in the world. More New Zealanders have died in overseas wars as a proportion of our population than nearly any other country because we are always prepared to do more than our bit.

Trying to sell more of our exports to the poorest countries is not much of an economic strategy.

We are not going to develop export markets for New Zealand by focusing on how much we can sell to the poorest people in the world.

We should certainly be open to trade with the least developed countries of the world.

But trade reform alone, while necessary, is not sufficient.

The last government allowed tariff free access to products from least developed countries as far back as 2002.

I was bitterly attacked from the left for that. The Greens and a number of trade union leaders were strongly against it.

But the truth is - the proportion of imports from least developed countries hasn’t changed since then.

We haven’t been swamped by imports as critics claimed we would.
It also hasn’t been the pathway to prosperity for the poor countries, as some advocates claimed it would be.

You have to do much more.

We have to focus on much more than economic development or even aid itself.

If you focus only on economic development then in a country like the Solomons you would try to aid more value from the trees being extracted there. But there is much more to do than that.

We are talking about countries where a total billion people live in conditions we associate with the fourteenth century deprivation.

Bringing them out of poverty requires a focus on good government, on transparency and ending corruption.

More money is stolen from Africa every year by corrupt governments than the world gives the entire continent in aid. It gets stolen and put in western banks.

If we simply stopped Western banks from being used to hold the stolen proceeds of looting in Africa by corrupt political leaders, it would have the same effect as the overnight doubling of aid budgets.

A focus on economic development doesn’t even look at this issue - a focus on poverty does,

A focus on poverty requires a focus on post-conflict recovery.

Not much is going to be done about poverty in a country ruined by civil war, where any money that comes in gets spent on strengthening the military, where communities are at constant risk of attack and where the spoils of victory are distributed to one side or the other.

Focusing on these issues is crucial - but you cannot do a good job of that if you focus on economic development alone.

In the last year, trillions of dollars of wealth has been destroyed all over the world as financial markets collapse.

Governments everywhere acknowledge this economic crisis and they are scrambling to make an urgent and drastic response.

Why aren’t the billion people living in poverty an urgent global crisis too?

We could have fixed their problem forever for a fraction of the amount lost in the global financial crisis.

The entire annual aid budget of the world is less than the amount lost by some of those failed merchant banks and gigantic corporations alone.

We have the means to end global poverty.

What we lack is not the means, but the will.

NZAid embodies our will to reduce global poverty.

Smashing NZAid, setting the clock back to the past, is a hugely backward step and it interferes with our ability to fight poverty.

It is a mistake, the National government should not go down that road and we should not allow them to do so.

Focus aid on poverty elimination

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-03-27T13:00:43+13:00

A focus on economic development rather than poverty elimination will mean we don’t focus on some critical problems affecting the world’s poorest countries, Progressive leader Jim Anderton told a summit on the future of New Zealand aid today.

Jim Anderton is a former economic development minister, and Progressive party deputy leader Matt Robson set up NZAid when he was overseas development minister.

“The poorest billion people in the world live in conditions we associate with fourteenth century deprivation. Bringing them out of poverty requires a focus on good government, on transparency and ending corruption,” Jim Anderton says.

“More money is stolen from Africa every year by corrupt governments than the world gives the entire continent in aid. It gets stolen and put in western banks. If we simply stopped Western banks from being used to hold the stolen proceeds of looting in Africa by corrupt political leaders, it would have the same effect as the overnight doubling of aid budgets. A focus on economic development doesn’t even look at this issue - a focus on poverty does.

“A focus on poverty requires a focus on post-conflict recovery. Not much is going to be done about poverty in a country ruined by civil war, where any money that comes in gets spent on strengthening the military. Focusing on these issues is crucial - but you cannot do a good job of that if you focus on economic development alone.”

Jim Anderton says it is profoundly wrong to make assistance to New Zealand companies the focus of our aid effort.

“We don’t give aid to benefit New Zealand companies. We do it because we are good global citizens. Trying to sell more of our exports to the poorest countries is not much of an economic strategy. We are not going to develop export markets for New Zealand by focusing on how much we can sell to the poorest people in the world.

“We should certainly be open to trade with the least developed countries of the world. But trade reform alone, while necessary, is not sufficient.”

Maori Party sides with disgusting humanitarian abuse

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-04-28T12:57:53+12:00

Maori Party sides with disgusting humanitarian abuse

Progressive leader Jim Anderton is disgusted that the Maori Party has sided with appalling humanitaran abuses by blocking a motion in Parliament that expressed concern about the dire humanitarian situation in Northern Sri Lanka.

The United Nations estimates that since January 200,000 civilians have fled their homes, 4,500 have been killed and 12,000 wounded. The Red Cross has helped over ten thousand wounded civilians caught up in fighting between Sri Lankan Government and the Liberation Tamil Tigers of Eelam (LTTE).

Today Jim Anderton asked parliament to pass a motion expressing concern about the dire humanitarian situation in Northern Sri Lanka, asking that civilians be spared and calling on respect for international humanitarian law. All parliamentary parties were given a copy of the notice of motion in advance. Only the Maori Party stopped it being adopted.

“The Maori Party’s behaviour is outrageous,” Jim Anderton said.

“The situation in Sri Lanka is dire. There is very little we can do from here, but one thing we can do is express support for the civilians caught up in fighting.

“No one is being asked to take sides. But parliamentarians were asked to express concern, they were asked to express support for allowing civilians to leave the combat zone, they were asked to condemn violence against civilians leaving the combat zone and they were asked to respect international humanitarian law.

“What on that list could any reasonable person be opposed to?”

The motion read:

That this House, notes its deep concern at the dire humanitarian situation in Northern Sri Lanka and calls upon both the Sri Lankan Government and the Liberation Tamil Tigers of Eelam (LTTE) to immediately stop hostilities to allow those civilians in the combat zone to move to safety, condemns all acts of violence and intimidation which are preventing civilians from leaving the conflict area, and calls on both sides to respect international humanitarian law and to protect and assist the civilian population in combat zone, as in the internally displaced persons (IDP) camps.

MPs should not be able to fight by-elections

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-05-05T12:55:19+12:00

It’s a farce that sitting MPs are standing for election to parliament, Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.
He is 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 in using their parliamentary salaries and resources to bring in someone on a party list who has nothing to do with Mt Albert. For example, if the National candidate were to win she would be an MP just as she is now. But she would bring in a new MP who virtually no one has heard of, and who might never have visited Mt Albert in his or her life.
“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,” Jim Anderton said.

Launch of the Finsec Banking petition

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-05-05T12:54:05+12:00

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.

Tribute to Senior-Constable Len Snee

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-05-12T12:51:52+12:00

Speech in the House

I join with other party leaders in expressing my deepest condolences to the family of Len Snee.

I too wish a speedy and full recovery to the injured as they lie in their hospitals.

I send my best wishes to their families who must be desperately worried as they pray and wait at the bedsides of the fallen.

Maybe the most sombre thing we do in here is send men and women into danger on our behalf.

We send them out knowing that sometimes, on our darkest days, they won’t come back.

When we send them out, we send them to defend New Zealanders.

They are there for us.

They go out as our bravest, and when they fall, some of us all falls with them.

Every police officer knows goes about their duty on every apparently normal day, with danger and unpredictability lurking.

They take on that danger on our behalf.

We can never repay sufficiently our debt to them, and we can not begin to repay the debt we owe to those who give their lives for us.

Most of us have learned a lot about Len Snee in the last few days.

We learned about his professionalism as an officer. We learned about his popularity in his community.

So I pay tribute to him personally and I hope his family, as they grieve, can find some small condolence in the respect and admiration his country is expressing.

I hope New Zealanders will show respect by declining to seek political mileage from this death while this wound is still so raw.

It is very easy to exploit the strong emotions we all feel over a tragedy like this. It is easy, but it’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.

Comment on agriculture - May 2009

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-05-12T12:50:00+12:00

In Parliament this month hours and hours will be spent debating the future of Auckland. There are several bills going through – some under urgency, some going to select committee for hearing. My side of the House is arguing for a referendum on the final decision.

All this because the Auckland region is critically important to New Zealand’s future.

It says something about our priorities, though: As important as Auckland is, nothing that happens in the next twenty years is likely to make Auckland as important to our economic future as our primary industries are and have been for over 130 years.

Of course, our primary industries are in much better shape than Auckland – that’s one reason why they’re more important to New Zealand’s future

But we do need careful thought about where our farming is going, and how we need to prepare and to change.

The future is already here.

In developed countries, demand for our produce is affected by consumer concern about environmental and health issues, by concern about animal welfare, and calls to ‘buy local food.’

For example, a letter to the editor of the Economist magazine this month said this, “Given the burden on health from an inordinately meat-based diet, the contribution that beef production makes to climate change, and the extraordinary toxic soup of pesticides, steroids and antibiotics that are increasingly used in the production of meat, one assumes that societies around the world will choose a different path to ‘affluence’.”

Just about every statement in that letter is wrong – but its publication in one of the world’s most respected publications tells us that there are plenty of influential people in our markets who are worrying about this stuff.

Here in New Zealand, I know of so-called farmers markets where customers are urged to ‘support local farmers by buying local.’ Actually, if the world starts buying local food, we will have a lot to eat and not much to sell. I can’t see that would support our local farmers at all.

We need our farmers to be good enough to go global. We need the world’s consumers to be interested in buying our produce.

And we need to deal with other threats, like rising competition from emerging economic powers like China, India and Brazil.

Of course, as those economies and others like them grow wealthier, demand for protein is growing too.

If we are going to seize this opportunity and stay ahead of our competitors, we have to keep changing.

Decisions about the right marketing strategy for each producer are going to be made by individual businesses. But New Zealand branded product generally occupies a valuable niche of its own – and the more we can exploit our strong positioning, the better we can prosper. Our niche is to be a highly eco-conscious producer of high quality products.

We cannot compete on price alone, but we must be price competitive. Our advantage is not on low cost of inputs – not in a first world country far from our markets. Our price advantage will only be achieved by efficiencies that come through science and research.

When the world looks at our products we want New Zealand farming to represent quality, environmentally responsible and unique. This applies whether we are marketing to a bulk commodity buyer, a purchaser of ingredients, or a consumer of our high value finished products in the supermarket.

But it also means we have to broaden our business base to leverage the strength of our primary sector. Just as a European or Japanese company makes money when a New Zealander drinks New Zealand beer brewed and bottled in New Zealand, we need to own more businesses that clip the ticket in Europe and Asia when a consumer there tucks into locally manufactured meals.

That in turns means we have to adapt our industry structures. They have to be strong enough to thrive in the changing global market.

None of this is easy. All of it is crucial for New Zealand. It’s about time we spent as much energy working it out as we spend deciding on roads and councils in Auckland.

Anderton brands Auckland reorganisation as the “Removal of Democracy” bill

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-05-18T12:48:34+12:00

The Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill should be renamed the Removal of Democracy Bill, said Progressive leader Jim Anderton in parliament today. He was speaking on the proposal to create an Auckland ‘super city’.

“The Local Government Act would have given Aucklanders a say in one of the most significant changes in local government in their region they will see in their lifetime, but they are not going to have a chance to have that say”, Jim Anderton said.

“In essence it is a great leap backwards to the days when 21 out of twenty two councillors lived east of Queen Street. It was the reason why a ward system had to be introduced so that all Aucklanders could actually be represented on their own Council. The conservative rightwingers have always resented that change and this proposal returns Auckland to the past they have always hankered after.

“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”, Jim Anderton said.

“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.

“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,” Jim Anderton said in the House today.

21st Anniversary of the Needle Exchange Programme

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-05-19T12:46:31+12:00

Speech, at Mantells in Mt Eden, Auckland
19 May 2009

I think most people know by now that I am strongly anti-drugs. I am, therefore, an unlikely champion of free needle exchanges for intravenous users. I don’t like drug abuse, I don’t like the impact it has on people and on entire communities. I have crusaded against cannabis and P, and strongly pushed for more restrictions on the availability of the drug that causes the most harm in New Zealand - which actually happens to be alcohol.

I’m anti-drugs not because I’m judgmental, but because of the harm drugs do. I wish we could end the misuse of drugs. I’m against making drugs more freely available.

So why would I have supported a free needle exchange programme? Why would I support and expand a needle exchange programme that provides free needles for intravenous drug users?

The answer is exactly the same reason that I’m anti-drugs: Because I want to minimise the harm caused by drugs.

Back in 2002, I was appointed as the Associate Minister of Health and the minister responsible for drug policy. 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 back then had helped to prevent twenty deaths from AIDS and more than two thousand cases of Hepatitis C and HIV/AIDS.

When you get a report like that in government, you sit up and take notice.
It makes a pleasant change from all the doom and gloom about things that don’t work.

Here was clear evidence of a programme that worked. The needle exchange programme was started up to reduce transmission of HIV and Hepatitis C between people who inject drugs. This would reduce the rate of infection for the entire community. And the evidence that it worked was conclusive.

But the report also came with very strong recommendations. One was a recommendation to remove a legal anomaly around the possession of needles and syringes.

As a result of that 2002 report I took a Bill into Parliament changing the Misuse of Drugs Act in 2004. The Bill did a few things - like bringing in much tougher rules controlling methamphetamines.

And it also implemented that strong recommendation about changing the law regarding possession of needles. The amendment I brought in at the time was a technical one that reversed the onus of proof on a person found with needles in their possession. It was meant to make the needle exchange programme work better.

Everyone here knows there was a lot of concern in the community about the needle exchange programme. And I remember a speech was given on the Bill by one MP at the time, saying he was worried about it. He thought a user should have to prove to a court their needles came from an approved source.

And while he was giving his speech an Opposition MP interjected and said this: “Absolutely. This provision is political correctness by a liberal Government.”

The National MP who made that statement in parliament is now the Minister of Health - Tony Ryall. He now has responsibility for the needle exchange programme.

You can look up his comment yourself if you want to - it’s right there in Hansard on 15 September 2004. “Liberal political correctness,” he called it.

I am going to give the benefit of the doubt to the now Minister and assume he was sneering about political correctness as a reflex action, rather than because he is genuinely misguided. But there you have some insight into the battle you have to face if you want to do the right thing to minimise the harm caused by drug use.

And on this day when we celebrate 21 years of a successful programme, you can be sure that we need to be vigilant in defence of good ideas.

Just because an idea is good, and just because it works, doesn’t mean we can take for granted that it will be supported.

We later went on and introduced the one-for-one programme that made needles available freely. I made (and succeeded with) a budget bid for $4 million dollars to fund the programme and I did it as part of the coalition agreement that the Progressive Party had with Labour at the time.

There were people who sneered at that as liberal political correctness. I can tell you from personal experience that there aren’t many votes in being wise or liberal about drug abuse. But it was then - and it is now - the right thing to do anyway.

Many others have spoken tonight about the success of the needle exchange programme. I am proud to have contributed to it. I am proud to have played a part in saving many lives.
I am pleased we have saved many millions of dollars in treatment costs that our heath system would have incurred. And most of all I would like to congratulate the people here tonight who have done their bit over the years to make this programme a success.

The results have been very worthwhile. I wish you all the best in continuing to do your good work, and in keeping the programme going.

And I would like to conclude by saying I wish we didn’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.

Needle Exchange Programme proven it worth

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-05-19T12:44:43+12:00

On the 21st Anniversary of the Needle Exchange Programme (NEP) - and the 4th year of the free one-for-one exchange of needles, Jim Anderton said he would again support and expand a needle exchange programme that provides free needles for intravenous drug users.

“The Progressive Party successfully bid for the funding to institute a free-to-users, one-for-one exchange basis in 2004, spread over 4 years, because we wanted to minimise the harm caused by drugs”, Jim Anderton said at the 21st Anniversary tonight in Auckland.

“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 back then had helped to prevent twenty deaths from AIDS and more than two thousand cases of Hepatitis C and HIV/AIDS.

“When you get a report like that in government, you sit up and take notice. It makes a pleasant change from all the doom and gloom about things that don’t work. Here was clear evidence of a programme that worked.

“And I remember a speech was given on the Bill by one MP at the time, saying he was worried about it. He thought a user should have to prove to a court their needles came from an approved source.

“And while he was giving his speech an Opposition MP interjected and said this: “Absolutely. This provision is political correctness by a liberal Government.” The National MP who made that statement in parliament is now the Minister of Health - Tony Ryall. He now has responsibility for the needle exchange programme,” Jim Anderton said.

“But there you have some insight into the battle you have to face if you want to do the right thing to minimise the harm caused by drug use. And on this day when we celebrate 21 years of a successful programme, you can be sure that we need to be vigilant in defence of good ideas.

“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”, Jim Anderton said.

Comment on economics and the recession

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-05-21T12:37:03+12:00

Response to Daniel Silva's comments for Country-wide magazine

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.

The first of these reasons is that it’s perfectly true that the New Zealand banking and finance sectors have not to anything like the same extent been in the business of offering the sorts of ‘toxic loans’ that banks in the United States and Europe have been. That’s to say they have not been lending large sums of money on securities which are wholly inadequate to cover the loans, to people who can’t afford the repayments and then packaging the loans in ways that make it almost impossible to untangle the debt and which spread it far beyond the originating banks.

But we have nevertheless experienced an overheated speculative housing boom which has now come to an end. At the same time our financial securities market which, although it was re-regulated to an extent following the excesses of the nineteen eighties and nineties remains significantly less regulated than others in the OECD, has paid the price in an unprecedented series of finance company crashes.

All of this exacts a toll that leads to recessionary pressures which when coupled with the impact of the international recession means a significant downturn in our economic growth. Fortunately for the incoming government they have two major advantages to assist them in responding to this situation. The first is the healthy state of the New Zealand economy because of the prudent, some thought over conservative management, of the economy over the last nine years by Finance Minister Michael Cullen.

The irony of that is that had he followed the then advice of his successor Bill English and engaged in significant tax cutting three or four years ago the current Minister of Finance would be far less well placed to cope with recessionary pressures than he actually is. No doubt that irony is lost on Mr Silva.

The second is that there is the backstop of local financial institutions, including the Kiwibank, which are able to pick up a certain amount of the slack although they obviously don’t have the capacity of the major Australian banks which do business here and which we know are more significantly affected by the international downturn.

The second reason why Mr Silva is wrong is that we are already feeling the negative effects. It may be, of course, that he leads a very cloistered life and has not picked up on the reports of job losses which are beginning to come with increasing rapidity.

The unemployed stand at 115,000 for the quarter to March or 5% with more job losses reported daily and the Treasury reporting a possible high of more than 8%.

This compares very unfavourably with the figures for the past nine years which reached lows of just over 3%, a figure not seen for over two decades.

In another of life’s little ironies these unemployment rates were largely the result of the Labour-Progressive government’s emphasis on regional growth and development. Both as Minister of Economic Development and Agriculture I was intent on placing considerable emphasis on regional development to the extent that we inherited an economy in which many regions were in negative growth mode and within three years we had all regions growing at rates which had not been seen for decades in some cases.

We maintained this throughout our nine years in office and thereby provided a cushion against subsequent unemployment. It will be interesting to see if the current government can maintain that record. I do know however that they will not do it by building bicycle tracks or by cutting back on the working fortnight which are measures which are no more likely to resolve unemployment than similar schemes did in the Depression of the thirties. Nor will they do it by cutting public expenditure which didn’t work in the thirties either.

The other area in which the impact is being felt, but which is possibly outside the ken of Mr Silva, is in the voluntary sector in which many organisations rely upon charitable and community trusts and similar bodies to underwrite their activities, many of which are vital to the well being of our communities. These trusts, for very good reasons, have traditionally diversified their investments and in some cases had significant sums invested in overseas securities.

The Auckland Community Trust alone is reported as having suffered losses amounting to two billion dollars and has had to regretfully tell some of its long term beneficiaries that they can no longer be supported. The potential ripple effect of that sort of loss may be incalculable.

Mr Silva is, however, right about one thing. We won’t get through the current downturn by panicking. We need to keep our nerve and mange our way through the recession by continuing to invest in our future as an exporting nation. But hiding our head under the blankets and pretending it isn’t happening is not going to get us there.

Aucklanders should have an elected, not appointed leaders

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-05-19T12:36:34+12:00

Letting Auckland vote would be a better way to make appointees to the Auckland super city transitional agency than a secret process in a government where decision-making is melting down, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.

“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,” Jim Anderton said.

Winter rebate from electricity companies would be appreciated

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-05-22T12:35:16+12:00

Knowledge that many elderly New Zealanders huddle under blankets rather than turn on unaffordable heating should be a wake-up call to the power companies to return a winter rebate to their consumers this winter, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton said today.

“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,” Jim Anderton said.

“The Commerce Commission’s principle investigation into the wholesale or retail electricity markets which showed that the electricity companies have not breached Part 2 of the Commerce Act but their extra $4.3 billion in earnings from 2001 to mid-2007 reveals they are charging with a take no prisoners mentality. The electricity companies’ 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 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,” Jim Anderton said.

Budget 2009 Speech

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-05-28T12:30:53+12:00

This is a budget that has all the competence that you would expect from the people responsible for Melissa Lee’s Mt Albert by-election campaign.

The good news: Inflation is no longer a problem. We have finally got the low inflation economy the National Party always said would deliver us its dream economy. How’s that working out now?

National has produced a lacklustre budget that Bill Birch would have been proud of.

In troubled times, when the economy is rocking on the waves of global economic storms, the government has responded weakly.

Not with a vision for the future.

Not with bold steps that will lead New Zealand on a developmental path.

But with a weak, uncertain, sitting on their hands response.

Governments around the world are investing in the future.

This one has slashed the future.

This one is the Broken Promise budget.

The total value of primary sector science investment falls from $2 billion in NZ Fast Forward under the last government to as little as $1.2 billion now.

It is cutting nearly as much out of science and research in the primary sector as it is investing in infrastructure.

Government spending on science and research, on a like for like basis, falls from around a billion government dollars in the NZ Fast Forward Fund, to $610 million in National’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.

This is huge cut in science and research.

It is a disaster for the future of New Zealand’s economy.

It is a disaster for the future of our most important economic sector.

Other developed countries are preparing themselves to come out of this 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.

That is what David Carter repeatedly promised.

He promised it as recently as this year.

Farmers and our agri businesses will be looking it up.

And they will find not increases, but cuts.

It has broken that promise as surely as if it has broken its promise on personal taxes.

I want to turn to some other features of this disappointing budget.

I want to draw the House’s attention to the table on Page 55 of the fiscal strategy report.

In there the government points to its expected increases in nominal average wages over the next four years.

If you deduct those from the CPI – the cost of living index - there will be no increases in real wages for four years.

No increase in real wages for four years!

This is the curious branch of economics that says the way to make New Zealand better off is to make everyone worse off.

Not since the eighties have we had an economy that didn’t increase real wages for four consecutive years.

It’s hardly conducive to keeping working New Zealanders here.

If they were leaving before, wait until John Key’s policies result in no increase in real wages for four years.

I have to give the National party credit for one thing.

There was a time in the past when National would have said the way to fix that would be to spend up on tax cuts.

At least Bill English and John key have now accepted that tax cuts do not stimulate the economy.

But that is not what they said when they wanted to get elected.

They promised New Zealanders tax cuts.

They now say they can’t afford them. Fair enough. But that’s not what they said when they wanted a vote.

Back then they said their promises took into account the worsening economic climate.

Back then they said
“National has structured its economic package to take account of the changing international climate.”

They weren’t telling the truth when they made the promises that got them elected.

They said: “Our tax cut programme will not require any additional borrowing”.

They weren’t telling the truth when they made the promises that got them elected.

The only way that promise could have been true is if his tax policy wouldn’t require borrowing because it was never going to go ahead anyway - and John Key knew that even before the election

Last year John Key said his tax policy was "appropriate for the current conditions" and would require "no additional borrowing.”

There is no excuse for this.

John Key was here in the eighties and he was here in the nineties when governments got elected and immediately tossed out the promises they got elected on.

I was in here in 1991.

I remember the Bolger government got away with the 1991 budget to begin with.

People gave them the benefit of the doubt that the economy had been wrecked by Roger Douglas and needed hard measures.

But over time it was a disaster.

This one will be too.

Those tax cuts needed to be cancelled.

But they should never have been promised in the first place.

John Key owes New Zealand an apology for getting himself elected on a promise that could never have been kept.

Did he know before the election that the international economic situation was deteriorating, or did he only find out when the Treasury told him?

Neither possible answer reflects well on his fitness to lead a country through a crisis.

I want to turn in the time left to the cuts to the Super Fund.

This is very sneaky politics.

Cutting the Super Fund now reduces the ability of any government in the future to provide for super at anything like existing rates or retirement age.

So what Bill English is doing is pushing out by ten years the hard decisions about the huge tax increases or cuts to super that will be needed to make super affordable.

He has calculated he won’t be finance minister in ten years.

He is right about that!

After this budget he won’t be finance minister in three years.

But he has delivered an enormous burden to future taxpayers.

The affordability of superannuation in the future must decline because we are no longer putting aside something now to pay for some of it in the future.

It was going to pay for around fifteen percent of the future cost.

Now it will pay for less than seven per cent.

That means the age of eligibility for superannuation will be increased to around 67; or else there will be huge tax increases required to pay for it.

That is the doozy the government has announced today.

This is not a budget that prepares New Zealand for the challenges of the future.

There is not a word in here about preparing New Zealand for the effects of climate change.

The Green party will be disappointed that the sum put aside for home insulation has been slashed from a billion dollars to $244 million.

Then we look over at the infrastructure spend, and we can see that the government is shifting $258 million of spending from rail to roads.

So this is what the Greens have got for their cooperation deal with the National party.

They have actually lost money!

They have lost $14 million!

Then what about the Maori party?

Who do they think is going to be hardest hit by this recession?

The National party is not doing anything for new jobs, and the Maori Party is voting for that!

At least Pita Sharples can wave at the unemployed as he drives by in his new car.

Huge cuts in primary sector science

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-05-28T12:29:12+12:00

Nearly as much is being cut out of science and research in the primary sector as the government is investing in infrastructure, Opposition agriculture spokesperson Jim Anderton says.

The total value of primary sector science investment falls from $2 billion in NZ Fast Forward under the last government to as little as $1.2 billion now.

Like for like government spending over ten years falls from around a billion dollars in the NZ Fast Forward Fund, to $610 million in the government’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,” Jim Anderton says.

“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.”

May Edition of Jim's eNews

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-05-29T12:15:23+12:00

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.

National is already causing super damage

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-06-03T12:13:00+12:00

Increasing calls this week for changes to superannuation entitlements shows that national has already caused damage by cutting contributions to the Superannuation Fund, Wigram MP and Progressive leader Jim Anderton says.

“The cancellation of contributions to the Super Fund means we will be less able to meet the cost of superannuation in the future. This must mean either cuts to entitlement, increasing the age threshold, or substantial tax increases in the future.

“Already commentators are queuing up to say the age of eligibility will have to increase, or the link to the average wage will be dropped - meaning superannuitants will be poorer relative to other New Zealanders. Others are already calling for a return to some kind of surtax that actually penalises people for saving.

“When New Zealanders hear this, they begin to make changes in their lifestyle immediately, because you cannot change your retirement plans at the last minute. Families don’t know how much more they have to put aside to pay for their retirement. And the political consensus they rely on to make long term decisions begins to erode.

“National has a dreadful track record on superannuation because it doesn’t fundamentally believe in all New Zealanders having access to a secure retirement income at a level that enables retired New Zealanders to a reasonable standard of living.

“New Zealanders have already lost some of their security because of National’s decision to back track on meeting some of the future costs of superannuation.

“Increased chatter about future cuts to super is all the proof that’s needed that the damage is already being done,” Jim Anderton said.

Banks repatriating ‘enormous amounts’

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-07-01T12:10:51+12:00

Banks repatriating ‘enormous amounts’

New Zealand bank branches paid their overseas owners $11.7 billion in interest and profit last year.

Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton told a Federated Farmers conference today that the situation poses a risk for the agriculture sector, which is facing a ‘perfect storm’ of input price rises, threats to demand and now finance risks.

Total bank lending to agriculture in April this year was $43.7 billion, or 13.8 per cent of the total lent to New Zealand.

“Two thirds of that is lending to the dairy industry - at a time when one estimate says Fonterra could be forced to cut its payout from the current $4.55 if our dollar stays over sixty US cents. This would be very hard on some farming businesses that thought the last couple of years’ high prices would last longer. If interest rates came down just one per cent, farmers would save $450 million,” Jim Anderton said.

“The banking system has begun repatriating enormous amounts of New Zealand money.”

Remittances by banks in New Zealand to their overseas owners climbed from $3.8 billion in 2000, to 4.6 billion in 2004, and then began climbing steeply: $6 billion in 2005; $7.8 billion in 2006; $9.1 billion in 2007 and $11.7 billion last year.

“That’s more than the entire GST revenue of New Zealand. It is more than the entire education budget. And in a single year it is far more than the entire proceeds of the asset sales programme that caused so much pain through the eighties and nineties.”

“The huge remittances to banks are the result of the Australian banks funding our balance of payments deficit, now at sixteen billion dollars a year. They are taking an enormous clip of the ticket for doing it. We need to rely more on our own savings, instead of spending the savings of others.

“Interest rates are too high at a time when banks should be reducing them. In a recession, while banks around the world have been under pressure, the big banks here have been smirking. In the current environment, a lot of farms are facing a squeeze and they will struggle to meet the payments on their debt.”

Federated Farmers conference

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-07-01T12:05:00+12:00

Speech to Federated Farmers conference, 12 Noon Wednesday, 1 July 2009

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to talk to you as the Opposition spokesperson on agriculture. Can I also acknowledge the generous comments I have received from many farmers in recent months.

I have always been confident in the future of New Zealand’s agricultural industries. You have to be, because agriculture is intrinsic to our economy’s strength and our success. And it has been the backbone of our economy for most of our economic history because of our competitive advantage as a farming nation.

But while I am confident, I am realistic as well. There are a number of issues we need to deal with:

Farm profitability is uncertain in stormy international economic conditions.
There are broad risks in the financial strength of the agricultural sector.
Global awareness about environmental impacts and animal welfare are forcing change in our markets, and changing the business environment - as well as affecting the raw materials farming depends on, like climate and water.

I’m glad you’re meeting here in Auckland, because it emphasises that the prosperity even of our largest city is dependent on the performance of our farmers. Agriculture is as relevant to Queen Street as it is to Hokitika, to Matamata, to Geraldine or to Carterton.

For that matter, the services that cities can provide can be crucial to our primary industries, too. In my home town, Christchurch, some of the most innovative scientists in New Zealand are rivaled only by their contemporaries in cities like Palmerston North and Hamilton in their research contribution to New Zealand.

There is always a risk that our economic backbone will be ignored in public debate about our economy.

At the start of this year, when the then new government opened its year in parliament with the Speech from the Throne, the word ‘agriculture’ didn’t even get a mention. It was the first time in at least a decade that our farmers were ignored. There is not much chance of developing the right policy for the agricultural sector, when farming isn’t even being contemplated by the government.

The policy environment in Wellington today, like every capital around the world right now, is occupied with the difficult global economic environment. Many developed countries are in recession. Some of them are in deep recession. We can take some comfort that demand for food holds up better in a recession than demand for the cars of General Motors or Chrysler.

But we can’t be too comfortable.

Reduced demand around the world is likely to result in reduced prices for our exports. Ultimately that means incomes will fall. And because the same reduced prices affect farmers everywhere, we can expect farmers in every country to redouble efforts to increase productivity and production, because this lowers costs per unit of output.

And since every farmer around the world is in the same situation, total production will increase, with prices falling and demand increasing only slowly.

On top of that, there is input price pressure. One of the critical elements in soil fertility is nitrogen. Industrial fertiliser is produced from gas or coal, and the price of fossil fuels are high. Persistent increases in the price of oil and gas would lead to higher fertilizer costs, so you get higher input costs and reduced demand.

Hand in hand with that picture, we can expect to see rising protectionism in many markets, particularly in agriculture. So that makes market access more difficult.

This is a tough recipe for farms.

There are only two ways to increase farm profitability: reducing the costs of inputs, or increasing the value of production from given inputs. A combination of both strategies is inevitable.

The underlying trend in the export prices for our commodity agricultural products is down, over the long term. With some medium term exceptions, such as China’s expansion and climate events, prices for agricultural exports have been under long-term downward pressure. The strong expansion of China in recent years has helped to push up the prices of many raw materials - including some that farmers compete for, such as energy - while also increasing the price for agricultural products.

But relying on that to continue forever is not a prudent long-term strategy for New Zealand.

At the same time that we are confronting the difficult environment for farm prices, agricultural finance is under stress as well.

This is what I call a perfect storm: input price rises, threats to demand and now finance risks.

I’ve been looking at New Zealand’s accounts with the rest of the world. When you look at our merchandise trade - our exports against our imports, the deficit is large but manageable. But we face a massive deficit in one crucial area - investment income.

We have been using the savings of people in other countries instead of our own earnings or our own savings to pay for our lifestyle. And the bill for that is starting to come in. The bill is coming in from banks.

How much do you think New Zealanders send overseas each year to the big Australian banks?

In the nineties we sent overseas about three billion dollars a year in profits and interest on loans extended to New Zealand banks. For the first half of this decade it was stable around about four billion dollars a year.
But something dramatic has happened. The banking system has begun repatriating enormous amounts of New Zealand money.

Last year, calendar 2008, the banks repatriated 11-point-7 billion dollars in profit and interest paid on loans. That is, the New Zealand branches paid their overseas owners $11.7 billion in interest and profit.

The total has risen from $3.8 billion in 2000 to $11.7 billion last year. That’s more than the entire GST revenue of New Zealand. It is more than the entire education budget. And in a single year it is far more than the entire proceeds of the asset sales programme that caused so much pain through the eighties and nineties.

Behind this enormous repatriation of New Zealanders’ money is a serious balance of payments deficit. It now stands at $16 billion - that’s about nine per cent of GDP.

In other words, our total overseas debt increased by sixteen billion dollars last year. Debt like this is easy to run up and hard to pay back. It poses a risk for the agriculture sector specifically. Total bank lending to agriculture in April this year was $43.7 billion, or 13.8 per cent of the total lent to New Zealand.

Two thirds of that is lending to the dairy industry - at a time when one estimate says Fonterra could be forced to cut its payout from the current $4.55 if our dollar stays over sixty US cents. This would be very hard on some farming businesses that thought the last couple of years’ high prices would last longer.

Relief from interest rates would help. As Federated Farmers’ Lachlan McKenzie pointed out yesterday, every one per cent drop in interest you pay on that debt is worth $450 million. That’s a lot of money that comes straight off farmers’ bottom line.

How refreshing it is to hear the farming sector focussing on this issue. In the nineties, some farming leaders used to applaud higher interest rates and the monetary policies that deliberately punished the productive sector.

Today, interest rates are too high at a time when banks should be reducing them.
In a recession, while banks around the world have been under pressure, the big banks here have been smirking.

In the current environment, a lot of farms are facing a squeeze and they will struggle to meet the payments on their debt.

This is serious, and it needs serious attention urgently. I’m not confident it will get it.
I’ll tell you what I would do if I were still the agriculture minister: I would immediately convene a taskforce of the best and brightest in the sector to develop a short-, medium-, and long-term strategy to the deal with the issue.

The huge remittances to banks are the result of the Australian banks funding our balance of payments deficit. They are taking an enormous clip of the ticket for doing it.

We need to rely more on our own savings, instead of spending the savings of others.

And we need some fresh thinking on the balance of payments problem too.

We need a broad-based focus to reduce our imports. We could make a start if we were able to reduce our dependence on imported oil.

If we could develop reasonably-priced biofuels and other forms of new energy, and reduce waste energy, we would score a huge opportunity for farming:

Potentially a new source of revenue for farmers.
Potential cost-savings.
A contribution to a better climate and the natural resources our farms depend on.
And a substantial reduction in our trading deficit with the rest of the world.

On top of all these advantages, it would help us to prosper in a world where consumers are becoming more demanding, and asking more searching questions about sustainability.

This is partly about how we manage our emissions - but it’s about a lot more than that as well.

If New Zealand is going to achieve a higher price for our production than our competitors, then quality and a perceived advantage as being more environmentally responsible will be part of our national brand.

As every responsible study shows, clean performance means we need to be responsible about our carbon emissions, too.

That’s why the Opposition is taking a constructive approach to working with the government on emissions trading. Only yesterday we voted with the government on a new climate change bill, in a spirit of working in the best interests of all our industry sectors.

Some conclusions are inescapable. As a general principle, polluters, one way or another, will have to bear the cost of their emissions. There are developments on the table, such as Gordon Brown’s proposal yesterday for a global development fund to help poor countries replace their emissions with cleaner alternatives.

The world is also moving closer to a global carbon trading scheme. Once that happens, New Zealand taxpayers will not long pay to subsidise polluters, as we are now. Any government of New Zealand is going to have to deal with emissions if we are a prudent country. What won’t work is hoping that the problem goes away.

And I continue to believe environmental sustainability is a competitive advantage for New Zealand. When you see the ugly factory farms in many parts of the world, and you compare their practices to the clean and open countryside we farm in New Zealand, you can see we have a huge opportunity.

I know there are few New Zealanders as passionate about the land as our farmers.
And so as the world cares more about the good of our planet, this should be an enormous opportunity for us.

It will require care to seize the opportunity, though, because it is implicit in seizing the opportunity that we will live up to our promise.

We can’t just say we are cleaner and higher quality than our competitors. We have to BE it.

Consumers will not be impressed if we are seen to be dragged into better environmental performance kicking and screaming.

If you want to know what happens when change takes too long, ask the pork industry how its animal welfare standards are perceived by the public.

Now I support giving that sector time to change. I also hope that a review of the animal welfare code for pigs this year will impose higher standards. But none of us should be uncertain about the costs to the entire industry of the strategy it followed.
The public saw it as too slow to change, instead of adopting a strategy of having the highest quality. The reputational damage has made the pork industry the subject of more letters to my office than anything else right now, including the smacking referendum.

If it can happen in that sector, it can happen in any other. We cannot be seen to be the source of dirty water or unsustainable users of resources. We cannot be seen as polluters when our industry is based on healthy growth, on food and on good health.

So overall, we have an environmental challenge. We have a challenge to the industry’s financial stability. We have a squeeze on its cost structure. We have a struggle in global markets.

The solutions will be discovered by science. Sustained, deep and ongoing investment in research and development in the industry is crucial - to identify cost-saving opportunities, and to identify new processes and new products that will extract more value.

As has been well rehearsed now - I put my stake in the ground for research and development in the primary industries sector. The NZ Fast Forward Fund was a commitment of seven hundred million dollars, which would earn interest and private sector partnerships and grow to be worth two billion dollars over its lifetime.
It’s been replaced by a relatively puny seventy million dollar annual commitment - for just four years.

There is no guaranteed long term commitment. There is no chance to earn interest and fund very large projects from an annual appropriation when science has to compete with every other demand on taxpayers’ purses.

It would be unfortunate if the message that politicians drew from this episode is that there is no political problem with cutting r&d. I believe there is a huge divide over this issue between the different sides of politics. Our side says the way out of our problems is investment in r&d and people. Our side says the way out of our problems is investment in knowledge, training and skills.

This is an important debate, and it is crucial for farmers. But whatever choice government makes, it is now up to our agricultural industry to lead investment.

Investment in science and in research and development is the most significant commitment we can make across all of our agriculture, to determine our own future.

Investment in marketing, and in market-responsive structures. Investment in talent, in creativity and in the strong communities that attract people to rural lifestyles.

Our r&d, our talent, and the structures underpinning them give our agriculture a competitive advantage over competing countries with temperate climates. Our competitive advantage is our science and research. It is our people and our lifestyle.

Our competitive advantage in the future will be in our superior products. In costs driven down by innovation, not exploitation. In processes focused on delivering a better product to consumers. In environmental sustainability driven by science, not wishes.

And the agriculture sector is going to have to lead investment to keep us at the forefront in all these areas, because innovation is not going to come from anywhere else.

It won’t happen on its own.

And it isn’t happening fast enough in other parts of the economy. When you look through our economy to where the wealth has been created, there are some pretty compelling facts to confront. One is that our corporate sector has spent most of the last twenty years - overall - destroying shareholder wealth.

When you compare stock market results to the performance of farms and agri-business, you get a clear picture of where the strength of our economy resides. I understand the stock exchange chief executive was invited along to Treasury recently to lecture State Owned Enterprises about behaving more like the corporate sector.
If they were to behave like our corporate sector, they would destroy value.

They would grow productivity more slowly than comparable overseas businesses.
They would focus not on doing a better job, but on sending more of New Zealanders’ cash to overseas owners.

The stock markets agenda is to lobby for more privatisation of our SOEs, rather than focusing on growing more successful New Zealand corporates that deliver returns to shareholders by doing well in global markets.

I would have more New Zealand corporates behave more like our most successful agri-businesses. Then they would grow productivity faster than the average of the New Zealand economy. They would focus on expanding their international connections. They would grow the scale and and expertise they need to be world class businesses. They would build on genuine, science-led innovation and send the returns back to creative and entrepreneurial businesspeople in the many communities around New Zealand that are at the heart of our agriculture.

As I started out saying - there is a lot to be confident about in our agriculture. But I am a realist too.

Realistic that we need to deal with the massive debt problem, and the too-high interest rates we are paying to Australian banks. $11.7 billion a year in profits and interest payments? That’s where earnings from agriculture are going.

Realistic that we need to invest in r&d and creativity to come out of tough global conditions stronger.

Realistic that we need to turn environmental challenges into an opportunity.

And realistic that we can do all of this.

But it will take a fierce commitment of energy and co-operation across the sector.

I saw a comment from Don Nicholson that New Zealand's best exporters are found out there, in the fields and paddocks of New Zealand under rain, sun or snow working every single day, to bring wealth to New Zealand. I agree with that, and it’s up to the rest of us to match that commitment and to add our work to their success.

Why do Aussie banks charge us more than they charge Australians?

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-07-07T12:04:00+12:00

Interest rates charged by the big Australian banks are not only higher than the rates charged by New Zealand’s own bank - they’re higher than the rates the Aussies charge themselves, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.

“Floating interest rates on mortgages are far too high. But interest rates on credit cards, unsecured lending and farm lending are simply scandalous.

“For example, 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.

“The rate for borrowing cash on a credit card in New Zealand is 22.45%, while the same bank charges 19.99% in Australia.

“Why do Aussie banks charge us more than they charge Australians?

“Everywhere you look, the Australian banks are charging too much for lending in New Zealand.

“Total farm debt at the moment is around $43 billion. At farm lending rates of 13-14%, that means our farmers are having to pay $5.5-6 billion a year in interest alone to the Australian banks.

“The Australian banks charge interest on unsecured loans of 17.95%, compared to 16.9% charged by Kiwibank.

“New Zealanders sent $11.7 billion in profit and interest payments to Australian-owned banks last year. That’s more than the entire sum collected in GST revenue. There is no reason why interest rates can’t come down. The Australian banks are rapacious.

“This picture of excessive interest charges more than justifies a parliamentary select committee enquiry and one can only guess why the National government is opposed to one taking place,” Jim Anderton said.

Complaints over secret agreements

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-07-13T11:57:00+12:00

An attempt to hold negotiations over Auckland’s water services in secret might be a breach of the law, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.

He is 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.

Jim Anderton says 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.”

All talk and no jobs

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-07-15T11:53:00+12:00

National is talking big about agriculture, but it’s running up a surrender flag with no new ideas, Opposition agriculture spokesperson Jim Anderton says.

“Today John Key billed his 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,” Jim Anderton said.

How to reduce prison populations

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-07-17T11:51:00+12:00

There are too many people in prison and the Chief Justice is right to raise the issue, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.

But he says 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.”

Fitch warning a wake up on bank profits.

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-07-17T11:50:00+12:00

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, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.

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.

Jim Anderton says 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 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 level 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.”

Treasury claims about privatisation boosting productivity

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-07-21T11:48:00+12:00

Treasury’s claim that privatisation boosts productivity is an old song that Treasury should be embarrassed about, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.

“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.”

Jim Anderton tabled in parliament 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.

Banks have questions to answer

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-07-21T11:46:00+12:00

Banks are charging interest rates in New Zealand that are higher than the same banks charge in Australia, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.

He is supporting a cross-party inquiry into bank profits, because he says 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 are having 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 Feds’ concern over interest rates a topic for bank inquiry

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-07-22T11:40:00+12:00

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, Opposition agriculture spokesperson Jim Anderton says.

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 Jim Anderton wants 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.”

Comparing Tamils with Te Whiti is not credible

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-06-04T12:00:00+12:00

Maori Party leader, Tariana Turia’s claim that Tamil Tiger leader, Velupillai Prabhakaran, the inventor of the suicide belt has left the same legacy and made the same historical contribution as Parihaka’s non-violent prophet Te Whiti o Rongomai and his fellow prophet, Tohu Käkahi, is just not credible from a Maori leader, Jim Anderton said today.

“When I heard Ms Turia on Waatea Radio comparing the two leaders - one from Sri Lanka fighting for a separate Tamil homeland – and the other well-known and revered New Zealander, Te Whiti - and the lesser known Tohu Kakahi, I did a double-take,” Jim Anderton said.

“Ms Turia said that Prabhakaran’s 33-year war for a separate Tamil homeland in Northern Sri Lanka had its roots in British colonial policies which disenfranchised the Tamil mana whenua from their land and when non-violent protest didn’t work, the Tigers turned to military action.

“Prabhakaran, their leader was a proponent of violence from the outset and remained so the whole of his political life. The ‘military action’ that Ms Turia talks about included pioneering the suicide belt as an instrument of assassination and terrorism, and as result of which many innocent civilians and bystanders suffered horrible deaths.

“Te Whiti and Tohu Kakahi’s greatness comes from their embrace of passive resistance, which preceded Mohandas Ghandi, and it is the kind of role model which Ms Turia and the Maori Party should be promoting particularly for young Maori, rather than the record and actions of perpetrators of mindless violence which always leads to more violence, not less,” Jim Anderton said.

See also here.

Comment in Older & Bolder

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-06-12T12:00:00+12:00

The recent controversy over the appointment of Christine Rankin to the Families Commission has revealed the extent of an unwelcome intrusion of tabloid journalism into our media. But it has also failed to lead to the canvassing of significant issues which have nothing to do with Ms Rankin’s private life (which is her business) and which are to do with the whole subject of Crown entity appointment.

Most New Zealanders are blithely unaware that behind the structures of formal parliamentary democracy in New Zealand lies a comprehensive structure of Crown patronage under which literally thousands of appointments are made to statutory bodies each year. Ms Rankin’s appointment is just one of such, and a fairly minor one at that when compared to appointments to bodies such as SOEs and a wide range of Crown companies in fields such as energy and finance (Transpower, for example, or the Commerce Commission). These entities can and do make decisions daily affecting the lives of all New Zealanders but those making the decisions are virtually unknown to most New Zealanders.

The complexities of any modern state mean that no Minister can be expected to keep their finger on everything that happens within their portfolio, however constitutionally accountable they may be in theory, and require delegation, in some cases to specialists whose expertise is crucial to the continued operations of the government. But as the case of Ms Rankin shows the government of the day has more or less carte blanche to appoint whoever they want to many of the controlling boards involved without any structures for ensuring suitability or accountability. The surprising things is that, despite accusations to the contrary made from time to time, the Cabinet Committee members and officials involved do try to ensure as far as possible that politics does not enter into the matter and that those appointed are full credentialed for the job in hand.

It is only when an appointment is made to a body such as Families Commission – essentially a political creation for political reasons and thus open to potential for appointment for political reasons (this is sometimes referred to as ‘cronyism’ although there is no evidence of this in Ms Rankin’s case) that the danger of outright political appointments arises.

In theory there is an independent body which oversees many of these appointments, the Crown Company Appointments Advisory Unit (known to government insiders by its acronym CCMAU) but this unit is buried deep in the bowels of Treasury, is as unknown to most New Zealanders as the bodies it oversees, and is in any event well known in the same insider circles for its conservatism in the appointments it recommends.

Thanks to a review carried out partly at my instigation under the Clark government the criteria used by CCMAU in the recommendation of appointments were broadened to try and bring more on board of those from ethnic minorities, a broader geographical area, and in particular women, provided they also have the necessary credentials. This has made some difference but not enough. Ironically Ms Rankin’s appointment contributes to that outcome.

It seems to me that it is time that this was brought more fully into the open and a transparent and public system of nominations introduced. What a pity it was that the opportunity provided to do so by the Rankin and other appointments e.g. to the ACC, was stymied by the failure of our media to pursue the real issue.

Comment on agriculture - June

contact@progressive.org.nz — 2009-06-22T11:40:34+12:00

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.

It is true that that the New Zealand banking and finance sectors have not been in the business of offering ‘toxic loans’ like United States and European banks, but we have nevertheless experienced an overheated speculative housing boom.

That helps to put pressure on the productive sector. When speculators force up housing prices, interest rates go up, and then our dollar gets over-valued too. And no one is helped when a boom turns into a bust.

There are a couple of things we can do.

We can run the government’s finances in a way that smoothes the business cycle better. For example, the last government refused to over heat the economy by turning surpluses into deficits in the good times. This left us with one of the strongest sets of government accounts in the developed world. The other side of the coin is that we need to be ready to give the economy a push when international financial waves crash on our shores.

The worst thing we can do is make the crisis worse by tightening the government’s belt when private spending is already falling.

There is more we can do to help our selves. A backstop of local financial institutions, including Kiwibank, can pick up some slack.

And the other thing we have to do is invest in regional development and the strength of our most productive parts of the economy. In New Zealand, this means our primary sector.

When I was minister of economic development and then agriculture I saw regions that had been hammered by years of low or even negative growth. We got stuck in and within three years every region in New Zealand was in positive growth mode. As they grew, the jobs came back quickly, and communities grew far stronger.

It will be interesting to see if the current government can maintain that record. I do know however that they will not do it by building a bicycle lane or by cutting back on the working fortnight which are measures which cannot or will not increase either production or productivity.

I have been saying since National cancelled the two billion dollar NZ Fast Forward fund that I was looking forward to seeing how they replaced it. Unfortunately, they have replaced it with the largest cuts in science and research in New Zealand’s history.

While governments around the world are investing to make sure their economies come out of recession stronger, in this year’s Budget the National-led government cut as much out of science and research in the primary sector as it is investing in infrastructure.

The total value of primary sector science investment falls from $2 billion in the NZ Fast Forward Fund under the last government, to as little as $1.2 billion now. With matching private sector funding, the total investment in primary sector research and development is going to fall by $800 million, or about 0.4 per cent of GDP.

The government has not replaced a cent of the cancelled research and development tax credits and has cut innovation spending by more than the value of the personal tax cuts. This huge cut in science and research spells disaster for the future of New Zealand’s economy, especially in our highest export earner, the primary industries sector.