Drug and alcohol abuse
Jim's E-News September
09/09/11 15:05 Filed in: Newsletters
John Key Fact Free
The ability of Prime Minister John Key to rewrite history and make things up as he goes is something that, despite my years in politics, continues to astound me.
On TVNZ’s Breakfast programme recently, John Key told interviewer Corin Dann that a law that I had passed to increase the price of sherry had the consequence of putting fortified wine manufacturers in his electorate out of business and causing grandmothers to move from their regular tipple of sherry to low-priced vodka. Key went on to tell Dann that increasing prices did not affect alcohol consumption.
In his comments, Key cynically ignored the fact that the law change, which, incidentally, I promoted on behalf of Labour’s Rick Barker, who was Minister of Customs but out of New Zealand at the time, the removal of a highly lethal product from the shelves of liquor outlets. It wasn’t Grandma’s sherry that was the target of the legislation, it was the so-called light spirits with an alcohol content of 23% or more. The law change was aimed at those selling high octane drinks to kids. Those drinks included vodka, gin, whiskey, and brandy. And the law change worked. Using price control to remove a literally lethal cocktail product aimed at young binge drinkers was a complete success. It reduced the sale of ‘light’ spirits by more than 80% and has virtually knocked them out of the market.
Although the cost of alcohol-related harm to New Zealand is in the order of $2 billion to $3 billion a year, Mr Key is trying to argue that the problem is binge-drinking restricted mostly to the young. He is wrong; alcohol abuse is a widespread problem, with 700,000 New Zealanders drinking too heavily with 60% of all police arrests involving the abuse of alcohol.
While John Key’s stance is one that alarms me, as is that of the media which fawns over his every word while failing to investigate the accuracy of his assertions. Key’s calculated use of his populist appeal, while pushing through legislation and policies that will ultimately harm our society, shows one thing; that John Key doesn’t actually care about people. He doesn’t really care about the ‘grandmas’ or binge-drinking teens, or the harm that the misuse of alcohol causes. What he revealed to Dann on the Breakfast programme was his true motivation; that of defending those people who manufacture cheap booze and cause misery to others in order to make themselves rich.
Transcript of the TVNZ interview with the PM.
My response.
Ministerial statement at the time.
Megan Woods endorsed for Wigram
It is now less than one month until I give my farewell, or valedictory, speech to Parliament, marking an end to my 27 years as the MP for Wigram and, before that, Sydenham. My speech is scheduled to be held at 5.45 pm on Tuesday 4 October and will be one of my last official duties in Parliament before getting back on the campaign trail, this time to help Labour’s Megan Woods.
While it will be unusual to campaign for someone else in “my” seat, I want to ensure that Megan is elected with a strong majority in order that she has a clear mandate to carry on the work that I have been doing. To that end, I have sent a personal letter to more than 28,000 households in the Wigram electorate endorsing Megan’s candidacy and urging constituents to vote for her.
John Key’s National Government, if re-elected in November, will cut Kiwisaver and Working for Families, reduce eligibility for such things as student loans and sell off state-owned assets. Undoubtedly Kiwibank will eventually be “on the block” and these are the very things I have spent my political career building and protecting. I want to leave Parliament safe in the knowledge that I will be handing over to some-one who will fight for these things just as I have done, and I trust Megan to do that.
Megan has been an important member of my own campaign team over the past 12 years and I know she has the skills, experience and ability to be a good MP and so it is very satisfying to be handing over responsibility to someone I know well and am confident will carry on what I hope has been a high-quality electorate service. In fact, her selection has made my decision to retire easier knowing that she has the qualities necessary to take over and be another hard working MP for Wigram.
Residents protest against liquor licenses
I recently addressed a protest rally by residents of Avonhead in Christchurch opposed to the granting of new licenses to discount liquor outlets in the area. These proposed outlets are in close proximity to student hostels and flats, the University of Canterbury and two secondary schools.
The stupidity of the licensing situation is illustrated in one of the applications where the authorities accept that another liquor outlet could only exacerbate existing liquor problems, but then went on to say they were not persuaded that the outlet’s car park and streets in the immediate area were likely to become venues for drinking.
In reaching their conclusion, the authorities were evidently not aware of, nor took into account, a number of significant, long-standing problems in the area caused by student drinking. Such has been the problem that, in April this year, the Christchurch City Council issued a temporary six-month public alcohol ban in this area. Since the ban has been in place there has continued to be a number of incidents, most recently an out-of-control party tied up all available police resources in Christchurch and which the police described as “highly dangerous”. So bad is the situation that local councillors have called for the temporary liquor ban to be made permanent.
The Council did not implement the current ban without reason. Vandalism, assaults and other crime caused through alcohol abuse has been prevalent in the area for decades, and the problem has been getting worse, not better. It defies belief to think that those authorities granting the resource consent could not have been aware of the extent of the alcohol problem in the area. To acknowledge that the granting of another licence could exacerbate the problem, but then not to be persuaded that the local streets in the immediate area would not become venues for drinking, ignores both history and logic.
The other point to note is that cheap liquor outlets regularly engage in alcohol promotion including the sale of discounted liquor. While they deny selling alcohol as a loss leader, many of the prices are extraordinarily low, with wine often being sold in supermarkets at less than half the normal retail price.
Again, it flies in the face of research and historical evidence to believe that students will not take advantage of discounted prices, particularly when cheap alcohol is available effectively on their own doorsteps.
My speech to the rally can be found here.
From the community organisers.
ECE funding cuts blot Minister’s copybook
If there are some things that defy belief, one would be the rise of education minister, Anne Tolley on the National Party list. Her climb, from 10 to 8 belies the disaster she has wreaked on the education portfolio.
Believing she knows more than the education profession, Minister Tolley forced the unpopular national standards onto schools before attempting to introduce changes to the early childhood sector that would have seen funding cuts to Playcentres of almost two-thirds of their entire budgets. An Early Childhood Education Taskforce, set up by Tolley, recommended that Playcentres be reclassified with the effect that they would lose 63 per cent of their funding.
At a rally, originally planned as a protest against the proposed cuts, I told parents and supporters that Playcentres are unique in the early childhood sector, differing from kindergartens and early childcare centres in that parents are directly involved in the care and education of their children. Playcentres offer parents a supportive environment to help educate their children because the centres act as community hubs, virtual extended families, offering help, guidance, mentoring and support when parents need it most. And because Playcentres involve parents in the running of their centres across New Zealand, they can offer affordable childcare.
Playcentres are the heart of Kiwi communities, and in some rural areas are often the only childcare available to families. The Government’s ECE Taskforce recommendation for funding cuts threatens the very survival of those Playcentres simply because they don’t fit into its current thinking.
On the Wednesday before the planned protest march, Anne Tolley was adamant the Government would not move on its plans, but within 24 hours she had abandoned that stance and was telling the media that there was no risk to funding. Perhaps the change of heart was because it is election year.
My message to the Playcentre supporters was that, if Anne Tolley can change her mind so quickly to appease them, she can just as easily change it back again.
My speech to the rally can be found here.
Farewell to Sir Paul
It was with great sadness that I joined many others last month in farewelling former Governor General Sir Paul Reeves.
Sir Paul’s appointment as Governor General was so obviously different to previous appointments in number of ways and he helped bring New Zealand into a new era. He was the first Maori appointed to the position, and the first to come from outside traditional diplomatic and legal circles. Importantly, he had a highly developed sense of social awareness and was not afraid to express his views.
Sir Paul was our first Governor General to have grown up after the great depression of the thirties and, like so many others who came of age in that time, he was influenced by the change it made to New Zealand and the way we think about ourselves. Throughout his life he identified with social and economic justice.
Always able to make his point effectively, Sir Paul could always cause people to pause and take stock, but without giving offence. That may have been because he came from a modest family background himself and never allowed himself to forget that.
Sir Paul knew from simply growing up and looking around that economic adversity and social exclusion can wound deeply, and that we must give everyone born into our communities as equal as possible a start in life, the sort of fair go society that most New Zealanders want to live in, and which is one of our most admirable achievements.
Sir Paul spoke out against the inequality between rich and poor, and against racial division. Neither was he afraid to push the limits of his constitutional position and its conventions and to make himself felt in political areas where his predecessors would have been reluctant to tread.
Above all else, Paul Reeves wore his talents lightly because he had that one thing which marks out those who serve us best; his modesty. Truly with his passing a mighty totara has fallen.
Release
Sea-change needed for New Zealand fishing industry
A change in the way we fish will reap dividends for the fishing industry and boost “Brand ‘New Zealand” if we can reverse current practices and industry thinking particularly by upskilling workers and addressing a number of outmoded industry practices that have dumbed-down our fishing industry.
I spoke recently in support of a petition from The Service and Food Workers’ Union to Parliament’s Primary Production Select Committee, urging a change in focus from treating seafood as a commodity to recognising our high quality wild fisheries as the ideal environment to produce a high premium product.
Too much of the fishing industry has compromised quality in favour of quantity in order to reap higher short-term dividends by treating seafood as a commodity. By going for volume, quality is lost which has resulted in low prices, widespread job losses and the devaluation of the enormous potential of our fishing industry.
There is no high value future in high-volume pulverised fishmeat caught in huge nets. The prices we are currently attracting for this product are no incentive to develop the high quality, high value fishing industry that New Zealand needs.
New Zealand has one of the most valuable wild fisheries in the world and we should expect to earn a sizable export premium from it.
Discerning chefs and restaurateurs will pay top dollar for fresh line-caught fish. We stand to gain significant market premiums for our fish exports if we can assure customers of high quality and sustainable practices that are the hallmarks of New Zealand food exports.
The current focus on using cheap foreign labour and bulk fishing is to the detriment of our fishing industry and risks giving New Zealand a bad reputation if it continues.
Meanwhile, interested parties have been invited to lodge written submissions with a Ministerial Panel inquiring into Foreign Charter Vessels fishing in New Zealand's Exclusive Economic Zone. The Panel will be reviewing New Zealand's current policy and legislation as well as the economic return New Zealand is getting from our fishing resources.
The Inquiry Panel, which will hold public hearings in Auckland, Wellington, Nelson and Christchurch in October as well as visiting fishing vessels, will report its findings and recommendations to the Ministers of Fisheries and Labour on 24 February 2012.
Submissions close on Friday 7 October.
Further information about the Inquiry, including the Panel's terms of reference, can be found at www.fish.govt.nz
The ability of Prime Minister John Key to rewrite history and make things up as he goes is something that, despite my years in politics, continues to astound me.
On TVNZ’s Breakfast programme recently, John Key told interviewer Corin Dann that a law that I had passed to increase the price of sherry had the consequence of putting fortified wine manufacturers in his electorate out of business and causing grandmothers to move from their regular tipple of sherry to low-priced vodka. Key went on to tell Dann that increasing prices did not affect alcohol consumption.
In his comments, Key cynically ignored the fact that the law change, which, incidentally, I promoted on behalf of Labour’s Rick Barker, who was Minister of Customs but out of New Zealand at the time, the removal of a highly lethal product from the shelves of liquor outlets. It wasn’t Grandma’s sherry that was the target of the legislation, it was the so-called light spirits with an alcohol content of 23% or more. The law change was aimed at those selling high octane drinks to kids. Those drinks included vodka, gin, whiskey, and brandy. And the law change worked. Using price control to remove a literally lethal cocktail product aimed at young binge drinkers was a complete success. It reduced the sale of ‘light’ spirits by more than 80% and has virtually knocked them out of the market.
Although the cost of alcohol-related harm to New Zealand is in the order of $2 billion to $3 billion a year, Mr Key is trying to argue that the problem is binge-drinking restricted mostly to the young. He is wrong; alcohol abuse is a widespread problem, with 700,000 New Zealanders drinking too heavily with 60% of all police arrests involving the abuse of alcohol.
While John Key’s stance is one that alarms me, as is that of the media which fawns over his every word while failing to investigate the accuracy of his assertions. Key’s calculated use of his populist appeal, while pushing through legislation and policies that will ultimately harm our society, shows one thing; that John Key doesn’t actually care about people. He doesn’t really care about the ‘grandmas’ or binge-drinking teens, or the harm that the misuse of alcohol causes. What he revealed to Dann on the Breakfast programme was his true motivation; that of defending those people who manufacture cheap booze and cause misery to others in order to make themselves rich.
Transcript of the TVNZ interview with the PM.
My response.
Ministerial statement at the time.
Megan Woods endorsed for Wigram
It is now less than one month until I give my farewell, or valedictory, speech to Parliament, marking an end to my 27 years as the MP for Wigram and, before that, Sydenham. My speech is scheduled to be held at 5.45 pm on Tuesday 4 October and will be one of my last official duties in Parliament before getting back on the campaign trail, this time to help Labour’s Megan Woods.
While it will be unusual to campaign for someone else in “my” seat, I want to ensure that Megan is elected with a strong majority in order that she has a clear mandate to carry on the work that I have been doing. To that end, I have sent a personal letter to more than 28,000 households in the Wigram electorate endorsing Megan’s candidacy and urging constituents to vote for her.
John Key’s National Government, if re-elected in November, will cut Kiwisaver and Working for Families, reduce eligibility for such things as student loans and sell off state-owned assets. Undoubtedly Kiwibank will eventually be “on the block” and these are the very things I have spent my political career building and protecting. I want to leave Parliament safe in the knowledge that I will be handing over to some-one who will fight for these things just as I have done, and I trust Megan to do that.
Megan has been an important member of my own campaign team over the past 12 years and I know she has the skills, experience and ability to be a good MP and so it is very satisfying to be handing over responsibility to someone I know well and am confident will carry on what I hope has been a high-quality electorate service. In fact, her selection has made my decision to retire easier knowing that she has the qualities necessary to take over and be another hard working MP for Wigram.
Residents protest against liquor licenses
I recently addressed a protest rally by residents of Avonhead in Christchurch opposed to the granting of new licenses to discount liquor outlets in the area. These proposed outlets are in close proximity to student hostels and flats, the University of Canterbury and two secondary schools.
The stupidity of the licensing situation is illustrated in one of the applications where the authorities accept that another liquor outlet could only exacerbate existing liquor problems, but then went on to say they were not persuaded that the outlet’s car park and streets in the immediate area were likely to become venues for drinking.
In reaching their conclusion, the authorities were evidently not aware of, nor took into account, a number of significant, long-standing problems in the area caused by student drinking. Such has been the problem that, in April this year, the Christchurch City Council issued a temporary six-month public alcohol ban in this area. Since the ban has been in place there has continued to be a number of incidents, most recently an out-of-control party tied up all available police resources in Christchurch and which the police described as “highly dangerous”. So bad is the situation that local councillors have called for the temporary liquor ban to be made permanent.
The Council did not implement the current ban without reason. Vandalism, assaults and other crime caused through alcohol abuse has been prevalent in the area for decades, and the problem has been getting worse, not better. It defies belief to think that those authorities granting the resource consent could not have been aware of the extent of the alcohol problem in the area. To acknowledge that the granting of another licence could exacerbate the problem, but then not to be persuaded that the local streets in the immediate area would not become venues for drinking, ignores both history and logic.
The other point to note is that cheap liquor outlets regularly engage in alcohol promotion including the sale of discounted liquor. While they deny selling alcohol as a loss leader, many of the prices are extraordinarily low, with wine often being sold in supermarkets at less than half the normal retail price.
Again, it flies in the face of research and historical evidence to believe that students will not take advantage of discounted prices, particularly when cheap alcohol is available effectively on their own doorsteps.
My speech to the rally can be found here.
From the community organisers.
ECE funding cuts blot Minister’s copybook
If there are some things that defy belief, one would be the rise of education minister, Anne Tolley on the National Party list. Her climb, from 10 to 8 belies the disaster she has wreaked on the education portfolio.
Believing she knows more than the education profession, Minister Tolley forced the unpopular national standards onto schools before attempting to introduce changes to the early childhood sector that would have seen funding cuts to Playcentres of almost two-thirds of their entire budgets. An Early Childhood Education Taskforce, set up by Tolley, recommended that Playcentres be reclassified with the effect that they would lose 63 per cent of their funding.
At a rally, originally planned as a protest against the proposed cuts, I told parents and supporters that Playcentres are unique in the early childhood sector, differing from kindergartens and early childcare centres in that parents are directly involved in the care and education of their children. Playcentres offer parents a supportive environment to help educate their children because the centres act as community hubs, virtual extended families, offering help, guidance, mentoring and support when parents need it most. And because Playcentres involve parents in the running of their centres across New Zealand, they can offer affordable childcare.
Playcentres are the heart of Kiwi communities, and in some rural areas are often the only childcare available to families. The Government’s ECE Taskforce recommendation for funding cuts threatens the very survival of those Playcentres simply because they don’t fit into its current thinking.
On the Wednesday before the planned protest march, Anne Tolley was adamant the Government would not move on its plans, but within 24 hours she had abandoned that stance and was telling the media that there was no risk to funding. Perhaps the change of heart was because it is election year.
My message to the Playcentre supporters was that, if Anne Tolley can change her mind so quickly to appease them, she can just as easily change it back again.
My speech to the rally can be found here.
Farewell to Sir Paul
It was with great sadness that I joined many others last month in farewelling former Governor General Sir Paul Reeves.
Sir Paul’s appointment as Governor General was so obviously different to previous appointments in number of ways and he helped bring New Zealand into a new era. He was the first Maori appointed to the position, and the first to come from outside traditional diplomatic and legal circles. Importantly, he had a highly developed sense of social awareness and was not afraid to express his views.
Sir Paul was our first Governor General to have grown up after the great depression of the thirties and, like so many others who came of age in that time, he was influenced by the change it made to New Zealand and the way we think about ourselves. Throughout his life he identified with social and economic justice.
Always able to make his point effectively, Sir Paul could always cause people to pause and take stock, but without giving offence. That may have been because he came from a modest family background himself and never allowed himself to forget that.
Sir Paul knew from simply growing up and looking around that economic adversity and social exclusion can wound deeply, and that we must give everyone born into our communities as equal as possible a start in life, the sort of fair go society that most New Zealanders want to live in, and which is one of our most admirable achievements.
Sir Paul spoke out against the inequality between rich and poor, and against racial division. Neither was he afraid to push the limits of his constitutional position and its conventions and to make himself felt in political areas where his predecessors would have been reluctant to tread.
Above all else, Paul Reeves wore his talents lightly because he had that one thing which marks out those who serve us best; his modesty. Truly with his passing a mighty totara has fallen.
Release
Sea-change needed for New Zealand fishing industry
A change in the way we fish will reap dividends for the fishing industry and boost “Brand ‘New Zealand” if we can reverse current practices and industry thinking particularly by upskilling workers and addressing a number of outmoded industry practices that have dumbed-down our fishing industry.
I spoke recently in support of a petition from The Service and Food Workers’ Union to Parliament’s Primary Production Select Committee, urging a change in focus from treating seafood as a commodity to recognising our high quality wild fisheries as the ideal environment to produce a high premium product.
Too much of the fishing industry has compromised quality in favour of quantity in order to reap higher short-term dividends by treating seafood as a commodity. By going for volume, quality is lost which has resulted in low prices, widespread job losses and the devaluation of the enormous potential of our fishing industry.
There is no high value future in high-volume pulverised fishmeat caught in huge nets. The prices we are currently attracting for this product are no incentive to develop the high quality, high value fishing industry that New Zealand needs.
New Zealand has one of the most valuable wild fisheries in the world and we should expect to earn a sizable export premium from it.
Discerning chefs and restaurateurs will pay top dollar for fresh line-caught fish. We stand to gain significant market premiums for our fish exports if we can assure customers of high quality and sustainable practices that are the hallmarks of New Zealand food exports.
The current focus on using cheap foreign labour and bulk fishing is to the detriment of our fishing industry and risks giving New Zealand a bad reputation if it continues.
Meanwhile, interested parties have been invited to lodge written submissions with a Ministerial Panel inquiring into Foreign Charter Vessels fishing in New Zealand's Exclusive Economic Zone. The Panel will be reviewing New Zealand's current policy and legislation as well as the economic return New Zealand is getting from our fishing resources.
The Inquiry Panel, which will hold public hearings in Auckland, Wellington, Nelson and Christchurch in October as well as visiting fishing vessels, will report its findings and recommendations to the Ministers of Fisheries and Labour on 24 February 2012.
Submissions close on Friday 7 October.
Further information about the Inquiry, including the Panel's terms of reference, can be found at www.fish.govt.nz
John Key is a fact free zone on alcohol pricing
29/08/11 16:28 Filed in: News Releases
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.
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
20/08/11 13:06 Filed in: Speeches
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.
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.
Jim's E-News, August 2011
01/08/11 21:41 Filed in: Newsletters
Time to take a stand against cheap liquor
Another liquor store is the last thing needed in my Wigram electorate, but it looks like this will happen if an application by Imperial Discount Liquor is granted to open a new Henry's Liquor Outlet in the Christchurch suburb of Upper Riccarton.
Three local residents’ associations are joining forces on 20 August to stage a protest against the proposed license; they’ve had enough as this area has become beset with public drinking, made worse since the closure of the inner city, post-earthquakes. Just last week, four students were arrested, cars were vandalised and police were pelted with bottles after yet another student party in Riccarton turned into what was described by police as “highly dangerous”.
What has particularly annoyed me lately is the increasing vehemence with which the alcohol lobby is attacking those who have expressed concern about the harm caused by alcohol. Both Doug Selman, from the National Addiction Centre at the University of Otago, and Ross Bell, from the New Zealand Drug Foundation, have been painted as wowsers and zealots, by an industry which appears to have resorted to name calling instead of intelligent argument.
The deadline for the reporting to Parliament of the Alcohol Reform Bill, which proposes revamping the laws around the sale and purchase of alcohol, has been pushed back until the end of August such has been the volume of submissions received by the Select Committee. Most of the submissions from lobbyists like the Hospitality Association argue that alcohol abuse should be addressed through education and by targeting the problematic minority, and that drinkers should take personal responsibility for their own actions.
While, on the surface, that might sound reasonable, it is quite the opposite and no less cynical than a tobacco industry that made similar arguments in previous times. Without doubt, the liquor industry is peddling one of the most addictive drugs in society, and one which is at the root cause of man’s social, economic and physical ills. Those who are addicted or affected are generally the least well equipped to deal with it in a responsible manner or to listen to educational messages, and the hospitality industry knows this only too well.
I often ask myself what some of those same people would say if their own children or family members became addicted to an illegal drug such as methamphetamine. Would they blame the dealers, or would they simply suggest that their own affected family member take personal responsibility? I think we know what the answer to that question is.
If you want to make a stand against the increasing number of cheap booze outlets, you can join me at the protest against the proposed Henry’s store at 1.30pm on Saturday 20 August. We will assemble at the corner of Athol and Peer Streets from 12.15pm, then walk down Peer Street to Yaldhurst Road at 1.00pm. Lianne Dalziel, Kennedy Graham and I are confirmed speakers. Professor Doug Sellman, a local of the area, will also be there.
Dunne's support for winter power rebate welcomed
I support Peter Dunne’s policy for a winter power rebate that he announced this week because ever since 2002, I have pushed for a return to consumers of some of the big profit increases from the state-owned power companies to help our most vulnerable citizens with winter power bills.Low income households could be given $200 toward winter heating costs and power companies would still contribute as much to the government as they did last year. $200 would mean some households had a month of relief from winter heating costs. For superannuitants, beneficiaries and people who have lost their jobs in the downturn, it would make a huge difference.
Mr Dunne is right to identify the seriousness of winter power needs, and the simplicity of doing something about it through a winter rebate but the policy is easier to implement if the power companies are kept in public hands. Mr Dunne is supporting National's plan to sell the power companies.
If you want the power companies to be involved in helping people, it's best if the people own them. And if they are sold, power bills are only going to rise.
Youth suicide will rise over next few years
It is not too dramatic to predict that youth suicide will increase significantly over the next two to four years as a result of shockingly high youth unemployment rates. Youth unemployment in New Zealand is currently at 27 per cent, and is among the highest levels in the developed world. High suicide rates follow high unemployment as sure as night follows day, and teenagers in New Zealand face increasing levels of unemployment, crime, and depression. As such, they are materially worse on all these scores than the average of other developed countries.In the nineties, the four peak years of youth unemployment were followed by the highest youth suicide rates in the Western world and we are set for a repeat unless strong action is taken. Our suicide rates are already at high levels, with over five hundred deaths a year and we are about to see a repeat of what occurred in the nineties, when the four peak years of youth unemployment were followed by the highest youth suicide rates in the Western world.
The NZ Institute's recently published “More Ladders, Fewer Snakes” report shows that New Zealand has the lowest median school leaving age in the OECD. Over a third of 16 year olds report being usually or always bored at school, and want to leave as soon as possible. Teenagers in New Zealand face high levels of unemployment, crime, and depression - materially worse on all these scores than the average of other developed countries.
As the NZ Institute reported, “Unemployment is central; it is an important consequence of disadvantage. Disengaged, inactive youth are at greater risk of lower earnings, needing social assistance, criminal offending, substance abuse, teenage births, suicide, homelessness and mental or physical ill health”.
The tragedy of youth unemployment is only the beginning. The Government’s choice to do nothing effective about youth unemployment will have tragic consequences.
My full statement on youth suicide can be found here, with further comments here.
Crematorium consent highlights disconnect between plans
Building a new crematorium right in the middle of a potential residential and retail area might seem quite illogical, but that is exactly what will happen if action is not taken to align the Christchurch City Plan with the Canterbury earthquake recovery strategy.Plans for the redevelopment of Sydenham, right in the heart of my old electorate, were unveiled last week and it was a refreshing look at what could be done to revitalise an old area of town which was very badly damaged, in particular during the February earthquake. After consultation with the local community, urban designers have come up with plan for a mix of retail, commercial and residential developments, with green areas and better traffic flow.
It was therefore of course, with some alarm, that local property and business owners and residents discovered that consent was given last November for an Auckland business to install a crematorium furnace, with permission to burn up to five bodies a day right in the heart of the area. The application for consent to run the business was not required to be notified by the regional authority and the type of business was consistent with current local body zoning.
The problems with this is that consent for the crematorium was approved under the existing, (and old City Plan), while planning for the revitalisation of Sydenham will require new zoning and other regulatory changes. It is a problem which will crop up repeatedly during the rebuilding phase, as property owners assert their rights to build to any current legal requirement rather than in a way which is consistent with recovery design. And it is a problem which should have been foreseen; consent for the crematorium was granted after the September earthquake, at a time when it was already known a great deal of redevelopment would be taking place nearby.
In my view it is completely undesirable to have a crematorium in a residential and retail area and I have asked the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Authority to look at the matter to see if urgent changes can be made to ensure this sort of thing does not happen again.
For the story, go here.
Funding cuts could spell end of Playcentres
Cutting funding from Playcentres makes no sense and could mean the end of this 70-year-old Kiwi institution if proposed changes to early childhood education are introduced by the National Government. An ECE Taskforce Report, commissioned by Education Minister Anne Tolley to investigate early childhood sector spending, proposes reducing Playcentre funding by 63 per cent. Under a proposed new funding mechanism in the Taskforce Report, Playcentres are classified as something called “other”, and that means drastic funding cuts.Throughout their 70 years of operation, Playcentres have provided a relatively low-cost, high-quality early childhood option for parents, and this is not something we can afford to lose. They were first set up in Wellington in 1941 to help families and communities through the war, and they are just as relevant today making a positive contribution to early childhood education.
Playcentres not only benefit children, but they show parents how to be positively involved in their children’s early childhood education, and this has been shown by research to be positive for children, their families and their communities. The Prime Minister’s own chief science advisor has continually stressed the importance of early childhood education, noting that investment in the earlier years results in less expenditure later. Ann Tolley claims that National is supportive of Playcentres, but slashing their funding by 63 per cent is a strange way to show support. Without this funding the future of Playcentres is doomed.
We cannot keep asking our communities for money when so many of the families using the centres are already struggling to make ends meet. The Minister needs to step up and show her support by rejecting the Taskforce’s recommendations and keep our Playcentres running.
Along with Megan Woods, Labour’s Wigram candidate for this year’s General Election, I will be meeting with local Playcentre administrators to do what I can to help them keep their funding.
A rally is being planned for the 7th August in Christchurch on behalf of Canterbury’s Playcentre Association.
Capital Gains Tax (CGT) finds favour
It takes a courageous political party to go into an election with a policy of introducing a new tax, so it was heartening to see Labour’s tax policies announced last month with capital gains (CGT) tax as its central theme.
A Horizon Poll released last week showed that the proposed CGT has attracted more support than opposition, with 40.9 per cent support, 34.1 opposed and 25 per cent who are either neutral or don’t know.
The Horizon Poll, the first nationwide poll conducted since the policy announcement, revealed that the 1201 people surveyed were polarised by income, property ownership and party vote. There is strong support for a CGT among Labour, Green, and New Zealand First voters and strong opposition to it among National, Act and United Future supporters.
I have always favoured a fairer, progressive tax system, and Labour’s move to increase the top tax rate, make the first $5,000 of income tax-free and to remove GST from fresh fruit and vegetables are all policies which I support.
New Zealand is one of the few countries in the world that does not have a CGT tax, and I have always thought it unfair that those, for example, with investment properties or making huge profits on the share market were not required to pay tax, while ordinary New Zealanders pay tax on every cent of income including interest earned on savings. The other problem has been that property speculators have pushed up the prices of residential houses, making it much harder for young New Zealanders to buy their first homes.
It is, therefore, no great surprise that the Horizon Poll showed that business managers, executives and farm owners show the highest opposition to a CGT, while workers, professionals, superannuitants and senior Government officials show a high level of support.
The Horizon Poll can be found here.
For details of the tax, go here.
For comment, go here.
New Zealand by Design
In late July I was fortunate enough to be invited to address the launch of a new book, New Zealand by Design, a history of New Zealand product design, written by Michael Smythe. The book deals with product design, beginning in pre-European times and then moving to pioneer-era inventions and finally to the modern era.
What I enjoyed about the book is that it celebrates the Kiwi essence in many of the things we take (or took) for granted, from Maori tools and traps, to gumboots, wool, presses, electrical appliance and even the kitchen sink.
In many cases, New Zealand’s isolation gives us the drive to innovate and to solve problems using our wits. It also gives us the freedom to try things out. That’s how the Hamilton Jet was developed, for example, and countless other kiwi problems solved. Many people refer to it as the “Number 8 wire” approach, but for me it’s not that simple. It’s the application of intellectual grunt to solve a problem and that is what, in many cases, sets New Zealanders apart.
When I set up a Ministry of Economic Development, one of our priorities in getting our economy growing and creating jobs, was to sell to the world many more products that rely on our unique skill and creativity. Because uniqueness and creativity command a premium, they are the key to lifting our incomes.
An advantage Kiwis have is that few can match our unique creativity. Design is one of the most important expressions of that. Not just styling, but the conception of how a product will be used, a view about what it is for and a unique way to bring that concept into being.
A book like Michael Smythe’s will help inspire people and make them aware of inspirational New Zealand designers, so I welcome it. It will help us to see how design made a difference to creating the New Zealand we have today.
My full speech can be found here.
Dental policy hits the mark
“What a great initiative” was typical of many message I received from people after the launch of my policy calling for the introduction of free dental care for all.The same person went on to say that they could not think of any of her friends and associates who go to the dentist for check-ups as the cost for dental work is so prohibitive. “My husband”, she said, “had a tooth removed recently and it cost $290.00 for less than a one hour appointment. We have no children at home, budget carefully and both work, but would happily pay more for fizzy drinks to subsidise this”.
She continued: “I would like to see this initiative expanded to include lollies and chocolates so they can become treat foods again. It is crazy that coke and the like cost less than milk and water”.
Similarly, the Nelson Mail reported a pregnant Motueka mother of four unable to afford to get a tooth removed and so was reduced to relying on painkillers for relief. In my view it cannot be healthy for a pregnant woman to be taking high levels of pain relief when the problem could be resolved through an extraction. As it is, if this woman is forced to go into hospital for emergency dental care, if the abscess gets too bad, the cost to the taxpayer will be even higher.
I could not help but compare the support I have had from the public for the dental policy with that of radio talkback host Mike Yardley who seemed to think it an outrage that fizzy drinks should be taxed to pay for the dental decay caused by those drinks. The problem with radio hosts such as Yardley, is that they are the very people who can afford dental care and do not have to worry about the plight of those who cannot.
Our dental policy can be found here.
Jim's E-News, June 2011
27/06/11 11:10 Filed in: Newsletters
Dental policy, free care to all
Free dental care for all may sound like a dream, but it is something I strongly believe should be introduced as a benefit for the entire population. This week, I launched a dental policy which advocates free dental care to be made available to all people, starting with vulnerable groups such as pregnant women and those aged over 65 years, then moving to those aged between 18 and 50 and, finally, those between 50 and 65 years of age.
These steps should be supported by education, publicity and, if supported by a parliamentary select committee enquiry, the fluoridation of all drinking water.
There should also be a bonding scheme for dentists and dental hygienists who are prepared to work in rural or provincial areas where dental professionals are in short supply in return for writing off student debt over a 3 to 5 year period of service.
Good oral health should also be reinstated as a priority goal for the public health system, together with the reinstatement of the requirement that school lunch shops and cafeterias provide only healthy food for our children.
The reasoning for my policy is quite simple. More than 44 per cent of our entire population do not currently receive any form of dental care and this is set to get worse. Only 50 per cent of young New Zealanders receive dental treatment because of a lack of available service or cost and dental decay is increasing significantly, often due to poor diet and the effect of such things as sugar-loaded soft drinks. Along with obesity and diabetes, dental decay is destined to reach epidemic proportions unless something is done as a matter of urgency.
Between 2011 and 2030, many of the baby-boom generation are due to retire and because most of them have kept their natural teeth, many will get serious decay from tooth crowns and exposed tooth roots. Clearly this means that many elderly New Zealanders will need expensive dental treatment, in many cases this will be well beyond their ability to pay.
There will, of course, be questions over the cost and affordability of this policy, and I have done considerable work researching this. The total cost of universal dental care could be as high as $1 billion, but this could be funded through a levy on earnings, similar to ACC, along with a reduction in the $17.8 billion tax cuts given to the most affluent New Zealanders by the National-led government, a levy on sugary soft drinks (such as we have on tobacco or alcohol), or a mix of all these possible sources of funds.
It is not that difficult and I hope that this policy will be promoted across the political spectrum and be an issue for debate during this years’ general election campaign.
Full details can be found here.
Christchurch CEO appointment process contaminated
If ever a process looked contaminated, it is that being followed for the recruitment and appointment of a new chief executive of the Christchurch City Council, and it is high time the process was abandoned and started afresh.
To cap what has already been a controversial course of events, the Council has restricted advertising for its chief executive position to seventeen days, and included in the advertisement that the current chief executive ,Tony Marryatt, is applying for a further five years in the job. It sends a clear message to other potential candidates that they need not bother applying.
There are a number of troubling aspects to the current process, none less so than Mayor Bob Parker silencing council members from expressing a view on Marryatt’s performance, by saying that it could expose the Council to legal action, but then publicly proclaiming his own support.
Marryatt, Parker said, was the best chief executive he had ever worked with, before being reported in The Press as threatening to resign if Marryatt was not re-appointed. He then apparently went on to ask each member of council individually, in front of the others, whether they personally supported Marryatt. Attempting to silence, then badger, elected members of Council is not part of a healthy, democratic employment process, for any position, let alone such an important one as this.
Add to this mix, the curious position where prominent business people, led by Chamber of Commerce and Solid Energy bosses, respectively Peter Townsend and Don Elder, published an open letter setting out the qualities they felt were needed in a chief executive to lead our city. According to Townsend and Elder, the sentiments expressed in the letter were a mild version of the discussion within their Chamber. Since then, others have added their voices, with a collection of "very influential businessmen" and public office-holders expressing "a considerable amount of dissatisfaction" with Marryatt's performance
Something is amiss here, and I cannot help but draw the conclusion that this recruitment and appointment process cannot continue. This appointment is not something that has to be rushed, and it is imperative that Christchurch has a chief executive who can unite the city and inspire confidence in tackling the very important tasks which lie ahead.
Maori suicide prevention
This week I was fortunate enough to speak to the Kia Piki te Ora national hui, although perhaps the word fortunate is not quite the right as the discussion was on suicide prevention. Alarmingly, around 500 New Zealanders each year commit suicide, that’s ten a week and, of that number, suicide among Maori is the highest of any demographic group.
I know that researchers have identified a high risk factor for Maori in attempted suicide among those who are not connected to their Maori heritage and Maoritanga. Other major factors include poor general health, the use of drugs, including alcohol, and, especially cannabis, and the number of suicides is high among those who have been the victims of abuse.
While suicide figures still remain too high, it is not to say that nothing has been done to deal with the issue. Suicide rates have dropped by around 25 per cent since a peak in the nineties and, while I was the Minister responsible for suicide prevention policies, the then Labour-Progressive government funded research into an all-ages suicide prevention as part of a suicide strategy.
While I was Minister, we ran the hugely successful John Kirwan advertisements that encouraged people who were depressed to seek help. We also launched a website, thelowdown.co.nz, where kids could go and find out about how to get help, and that was also effective.
When we talk about Maori suicide, we need to talk about adapting tools that work for individuals, and not thinking that one solution fits everyone. And we need to be committed enough and tough enough to implement our strategies, because not all of them will be popular.
Every single suicide is a tragedy, and I understand the distress and hurt of those who lose their loved ones. A caring country needs to respond when it sees a problem such as this. We need to make a difference if we want to create a society where New Zealanders feel valued and nurtured, where we care for each other and where we value lives.
My full speech to the Kia Piki Te Ora national hui can be found here.
Privatising ACC will lead to higher costs
Those who believe the rhetoric that privatising workplace accident insurance and open up ACC to competition will cut costs and provide a better, more efficient system need only look to Australia to see the opposite is the case.
An independent report by PriceWaterhouseCoopers in Sydney in 2008 showed that ACC costs in New Zealand, at around 0.8 per cent of wages, are substantially lower than the Australian average of 2 per cent of wages. ACC costs for farmers are much lower in New Zealand than in Australia.
It is inevitable that insurance premiums will rise for businesses and farmers when ACC workplace coverage is privatised, but worse than that, taxpayers could end up on the hook for another AMI-style bailout
There will be little to stop those same Australian insurance companies coming over here and underfunding their liabilities, which is what happened in 1998, when HIH went under with billions of dollars of liabilities that had to be picked up by Australian taxpayers.
In New Zealand, taxpayers are today on the hook for up to a billion dollars because AMI didn’t carry enough reinsurance and regulators were never warned of a problem. Why would workplace insurance be any different?
My press release can be found here.
Live animal exports banned from Australia
It isn’t often that Australians admit to being behind New Zealand, but earlier this month I was interviewed by ABC, the Australian national broadcasting corporation, about the banning of live animal exports. The Australian Government recently banned live cattle exports to Indonesia after revelations of cruelty to those Australian cattle in Indonesian abattoirs.
In this case it has taken the Australians some time to catch up with New Zealand’s lead and, in particular, the ABC was interested in the consequences to New Zealand’s economy of banning live animal exports for slaughter.
What happened in New Zealand is that most live animal exporting stopped in 2003, but it was finally brought to a complete end in 2007, after I intervened over the planned export of live cattle to Korea.
I was able to tell the ABC reporter that, although many farmers opposed the live export ban in 2003, by 2007 most of the agricultural industry in New Zealand supported the ban for a number of obvious reasons. These ranged from concerns about animal welfare to the potential reputational and economic backlash as consumers in other countries stopped buying New Zealand meat they believed was being transported and killed through inhumane processes.
But aside from the issues of animal welfare, I was concerned that sending live animals overseas represented the lowest form of commodity export. When asked by the interviewer whether there had been an economic backlash to the banning of live animals for slaughter, I looked to Indonesia as an example. New Zealand currently exports high quality, processed meat cuts to Indonesia, so it would make no sense at all for us to send them live animals. Shifting the processing from New Zealand to Indonesia would simply export our jobs and reduce the benefit to the New Zealand economy. There is nothing to be gained and plenty to lose by sending live animals overseas in this manner.
The full interview can be heard at: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/saturdayextra/stories/2011/3245820.htm
Family violence must be stopped
If I was to look at one alarming crime statistic, it would be that half of the homicides in New Zealand each year are the result of family violence. And it I was to look at another, 70,000 physical, including sexual, assaults take place every year. That is 1350 recorded assaults each week, or 172 each day, and, whatever way you look at it that is unacceptable.
Police believe they only hear about one in five family violence incidents. And they respond to one somewhere in New Zealand every seven minutes, meaning, literally hardly a minute goes by when there isn’t a family assault.
At a recent hui at Tapu te Ranga marae in Wellington, I told the audience that the only way we are going to make a substantial difference in reducing domestic violence is to front up to the extent of the problem.
The causes of domestic violence are multiple and complex, but there are some plain differences we can make. To start with, if people believe that violence has taken place (or is taking place), then they have a responsibility to act. It is no longer “just a domestic” as it was called when I grew up in New Zealand.
There is one common factor affecting sixty per cent of people who are arrested for violence and other criminal acts; alcohol. Alcohol, unarguably, is the most serious drug in terms of influencing violent and criminal behaviour in NZ and that’s the context in which ten kids a year are killed by a member of their own family.
Ninety per cent of people in prison have drug and alcohol abuse problems, and if we want to reduce the level of crime and particularly violence in New Zealand, the fastest way we can make a difference, and the biggest difference we can make, would be to make alcohol less available.
And that is just as true of family violence as it is for any other crime. The best law changes I can think of to assist tackling these problems would be to put up the price of alcohol, reduce the drink driving limits and raise the drinking age. That would be a good, practical and effective first step.
Free dental care for all may sound like a dream, but it is something I strongly believe should be introduced as a benefit for the entire population. This week, I launched a dental policy which advocates free dental care to be made available to all people, starting with vulnerable groups such as pregnant women and those aged over 65 years, then moving to those aged between 18 and 50 and, finally, those between 50 and 65 years of age.
These steps should be supported by education, publicity and, if supported by a parliamentary select committee enquiry, the fluoridation of all drinking water.
There should also be a bonding scheme for dentists and dental hygienists who are prepared to work in rural or provincial areas where dental professionals are in short supply in return for writing off student debt over a 3 to 5 year period of service.
Good oral health should also be reinstated as a priority goal for the public health system, together with the reinstatement of the requirement that school lunch shops and cafeterias provide only healthy food for our children.
The reasoning for my policy is quite simple. More than 44 per cent of our entire population do not currently receive any form of dental care and this is set to get worse. Only 50 per cent of young New Zealanders receive dental treatment because of a lack of available service or cost and dental decay is increasing significantly, often due to poor diet and the effect of such things as sugar-loaded soft drinks. Along with obesity and diabetes, dental decay is destined to reach epidemic proportions unless something is done as a matter of urgency.
Between 2011 and 2030, many of the baby-boom generation are due to retire and because most of them have kept their natural teeth, many will get serious decay from tooth crowns and exposed tooth roots. Clearly this means that many elderly New Zealanders will need expensive dental treatment, in many cases this will be well beyond their ability to pay.
There will, of course, be questions over the cost and affordability of this policy, and I have done considerable work researching this. The total cost of universal dental care could be as high as $1 billion, but this could be funded through a levy on earnings, similar to ACC, along with a reduction in the $17.8 billion tax cuts given to the most affluent New Zealanders by the National-led government, a levy on sugary soft drinks (such as we have on tobacco or alcohol), or a mix of all these possible sources of funds.
It is not that difficult and I hope that this policy will be promoted across the political spectrum and be an issue for debate during this years’ general election campaign.
Full details can be found here.
Christchurch CEO appointment process contaminated
If ever a process looked contaminated, it is that being followed for the recruitment and appointment of a new chief executive of the Christchurch City Council, and it is high time the process was abandoned and started afresh.
To cap what has already been a controversial course of events, the Council has restricted advertising for its chief executive position to seventeen days, and included in the advertisement that the current chief executive ,Tony Marryatt, is applying for a further five years in the job. It sends a clear message to other potential candidates that they need not bother applying.
There are a number of troubling aspects to the current process, none less so than Mayor Bob Parker silencing council members from expressing a view on Marryatt’s performance, by saying that it could expose the Council to legal action, but then publicly proclaiming his own support.
Marryatt, Parker said, was the best chief executive he had ever worked with, before being reported in The Press as threatening to resign if Marryatt was not re-appointed. He then apparently went on to ask each member of council individually, in front of the others, whether they personally supported Marryatt. Attempting to silence, then badger, elected members of Council is not part of a healthy, democratic employment process, for any position, let alone such an important one as this.
Add to this mix, the curious position where prominent business people, led by Chamber of Commerce and Solid Energy bosses, respectively Peter Townsend and Don Elder, published an open letter setting out the qualities they felt were needed in a chief executive to lead our city. According to Townsend and Elder, the sentiments expressed in the letter were a mild version of the discussion within their Chamber. Since then, others have added their voices, with a collection of "very influential businessmen" and public office-holders expressing "a considerable amount of dissatisfaction" with Marryatt's performance
Something is amiss here, and I cannot help but draw the conclusion that this recruitment and appointment process cannot continue. This appointment is not something that has to be rushed, and it is imperative that Christchurch has a chief executive who can unite the city and inspire confidence in tackling the very important tasks which lie ahead.
Maori suicide prevention
This week I was fortunate enough to speak to the Kia Piki te Ora national hui, although perhaps the word fortunate is not quite the right as the discussion was on suicide prevention. Alarmingly, around 500 New Zealanders each year commit suicide, that’s ten a week and, of that number, suicide among Maori is the highest of any demographic group.
I know that researchers have identified a high risk factor for Maori in attempted suicide among those who are not connected to their Maori heritage and Maoritanga. Other major factors include poor general health, the use of drugs, including alcohol, and, especially cannabis, and the number of suicides is high among those who have been the victims of abuse.
While suicide figures still remain too high, it is not to say that nothing has been done to deal with the issue. Suicide rates have dropped by around 25 per cent since a peak in the nineties and, while I was the Minister responsible for suicide prevention policies, the then Labour-Progressive government funded research into an all-ages suicide prevention as part of a suicide strategy.
While I was Minister, we ran the hugely successful John Kirwan advertisements that encouraged people who were depressed to seek help. We also launched a website, thelowdown.co.nz, where kids could go and find out about how to get help, and that was also effective.
When we talk about Maori suicide, we need to talk about adapting tools that work for individuals, and not thinking that one solution fits everyone. And we need to be committed enough and tough enough to implement our strategies, because not all of them will be popular.
Every single suicide is a tragedy, and I understand the distress and hurt of those who lose their loved ones. A caring country needs to respond when it sees a problem such as this. We need to make a difference if we want to create a society where New Zealanders feel valued and nurtured, where we care for each other and where we value lives.
My full speech to the Kia Piki Te Ora national hui can be found here.
Privatising ACC will lead to higher costs
Those who believe the rhetoric that privatising workplace accident insurance and open up ACC to competition will cut costs and provide a better, more efficient system need only look to Australia to see the opposite is the case.
An independent report by PriceWaterhouseCoopers in Sydney in 2008 showed that ACC costs in New Zealand, at around 0.8 per cent of wages, are substantially lower than the Australian average of 2 per cent of wages. ACC costs for farmers are much lower in New Zealand than in Australia.
It is inevitable that insurance premiums will rise for businesses and farmers when ACC workplace coverage is privatised, but worse than that, taxpayers could end up on the hook for another AMI-style bailout
There will be little to stop those same Australian insurance companies coming over here and underfunding their liabilities, which is what happened in 1998, when HIH went under with billions of dollars of liabilities that had to be picked up by Australian taxpayers.
In New Zealand, taxpayers are today on the hook for up to a billion dollars because AMI didn’t carry enough reinsurance and regulators were never warned of a problem. Why would workplace insurance be any different?
My press release can be found here.
Live animal exports banned from Australia
It isn’t often that Australians admit to being behind New Zealand, but earlier this month I was interviewed by ABC, the Australian national broadcasting corporation, about the banning of live animal exports. The Australian Government recently banned live cattle exports to Indonesia after revelations of cruelty to those Australian cattle in Indonesian abattoirs.
In this case it has taken the Australians some time to catch up with New Zealand’s lead and, in particular, the ABC was interested in the consequences to New Zealand’s economy of banning live animal exports for slaughter.
What happened in New Zealand is that most live animal exporting stopped in 2003, but it was finally brought to a complete end in 2007, after I intervened over the planned export of live cattle to Korea.
I was able to tell the ABC reporter that, although many farmers opposed the live export ban in 2003, by 2007 most of the agricultural industry in New Zealand supported the ban for a number of obvious reasons. These ranged from concerns about animal welfare to the potential reputational and economic backlash as consumers in other countries stopped buying New Zealand meat they believed was being transported and killed through inhumane processes.
But aside from the issues of animal welfare, I was concerned that sending live animals overseas represented the lowest form of commodity export. When asked by the interviewer whether there had been an economic backlash to the banning of live animals for slaughter, I looked to Indonesia as an example. New Zealand currently exports high quality, processed meat cuts to Indonesia, so it would make no sense at all for us to send them live animals. Shifting the processing from New Zealand to Indonesia would simply export our jobs and reduce the benefit to the New Zealand economy. There is nothing to be gained and plenty to lose by sending live animals overseas in this manner.
The full interview can be heard at: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/saturdayextra/stories/2011/3245820.htm
Family violence must be stopped
If I was to look at one alarming crime statistic, it would be that half of the homicides in New Zealand each year are the result of family violence. And it I was to look at another, 70,000 physical, including sexual, assaults take place every year. That is 1350 recorded assaults each week, or 172 each day, and, whatever way you look at it that is unacceptable.
Police believe they only hear about one in five family violence incidents. And they respond to one somewhere in New Zealand every seven minutes, meaning, literally hardly a minute goes by when there isn’t a family assault.
At a recent hui at Tapu te Ranga marae in Wellington, I told the audience that the only way we are going to make a substantial difference in reducing domestic violence is to front up to the extent of the problem.
The causes of domestic violence are multiple and complex, but there are some plain differences we can make. To start with, if people believe that violence has taken place (or is taking place), then they have a responsibility to act. It is no longer “just a domestic” as it was called when I grew up in New Zealand.
There is one common factor affecting sixty per cent of people who are arrested for violence and other criminal acts; alcohol. Alcohol, unarguably, is the most serious drug in terms of influencing violent and criminal behaviour in NZ and that’s the context in which ten kids a year are killed by a member of their own family.
Ninety per cent of people in prison have drug and alcohol abuse problems, and if we want to reduce the level of crime and particularly violence in New Zealand, the fastest way we can make a difference, and the biggest difference we can make, would be to make alcohol less available.
And that is just as true of family violence as it is for any other crime. The best law changes I can think of to assist tackling these problems would be to put up the price of alcohol, reduce the drink driving limits and raise the drinking age. That would be a good, practical and effective first step.
Jim's E-News, April 2011
05/04/11 09:57 Filed in: Newsletters
Twenty seconds of terror
It took little more than twenty seconds, but the Christchurch earthquake of 22 February brought terror to a city that was almost unimaginable. Someone asked me whether the images on television and newspapers exaggerated the event, but they did not. In that short time, buildings toppled and roads buckled and cracked in a way that I never imagined possible, and far outweighed the damage caused by the earlier quakes in September last year.
Although I was in Wellington when the 22 February quake struck, my wife Carole was driving home through the Christchurch city centre and so powerful was the force she thought the car had been hit by a truck.
It is good to be able to report that our families and my Christchurch staff are all safe and well, although all have suffered some damage to homes and sections. The roof in our home was badly damaged and we have had to revert to that old practice of getting out the buckets to catch the drips when it rains.
While, fortunately, none of my staff or family was physically injured, most have been left quite unsettled by the event, something which probably reflects the experience of most people in Christchurch. My office in Selwyn Street has been cordoned off and we have just been told that it will have to be demolished, a sad way to end around 20 years in that particular office.
We are currently looking for a new office, but in the meantime my staff and I are working out of my house and from their homes, and we are holding constituent clinics in the Rowley Resource Centre. Our phone numbers and email addresses are all the same, and so constituents needing to contact us should continue to do so by phone or email.
Now the work starts
The work rebuilding Christchurch is one that presents as many opportunities as challenges and I have been working as much as is possible with my parliamentary colleagues to ensure that we do the best for our city.
We are working at two levels. The first is in a quite practical way to assist constituents who have suffered loss or damage, whether they be residents or local business owners. Aside from such things as loss of power, sewerage and water, there are also homes and buildings which have been damaged, in many cases irretrievably. This has spawned a number of problems, with people needing to find new homes and, in many cases, finding that insurance policies didn’t live up to expectations. The other MPs, city councillors and I are also being briefed twice a week by Civil Defence and Council authorities.
The other level we are working at is at a national one, and most people will now be aware that the Government has set up a new ministry, The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA), to take charge of the recovery and rebuild from here. The National Government and Earthquake Minister Brownlee did not consult with local Labour MPs or me in the development of CERA, however it is evident that the tasks which lie ahead are too great for the Christchurch City Council alone, and so the establishment of a new ministry was inevitable.
Within its structure, CERA has a “Cross Party Forum” which will allow MPs to advise Minister Brownlee, and there is an opportunity for widespread community consultation, so we will be working hard to ensure that it is an effective body. There are, however, some real dangers with CERA, in particular with its power to relax, suspend or extend laws and regulations, and it can, for example, acquire, hold, deal with and dispose of property, and to call-in the powers and functions of a local authority or council organisation.
The work of CERA and progress towards the rebuilding of Christchurch will be reported in future newsletters.
Wood critical element in rebuild
While the Earthquake Minister may be trumpeting his view that old “dunger” stone and brick buildings in Christchurch should be knocked over and replaced, he fails to take into account that the most notable earthquake casualties, in terms of building collapse leading to loss of life, were modern buildings, their construction primarily of concrete and steel.
For some years now, I have been advocating the use of wood for commercial buildings, and the Christchurch rebuild is a perfect opportunity to showcase the merits of wooden buildings. My view is supported by mounting social, scientific and engineering evidence which shows that wood has the characteristics needed for a safe, modern city. As well as being safe, wood is a renewable resource with a plentiful supply, it is ecologically sound, less expensive than many alternatives and is an attractive, iconic New Zealand product. Strange as it may seem, laminated wood members have excellent fire resistance because the slow rate of surface charring protects the wood inside the beams and columns.
Researchers at the University of Canterbury, comparing the potential of commercial buildings constructed of wood against concrete and steel, concluded that timber construction is ideally suited to multi-storey building because of its high strength-to-weight ratio. The lightweight nature of predominantly timber buildings requires a lower earthquake loading than for a reinforced concrete one, wood being one quarter the weight of concrete for the same sized components.
Another benefit is that the new construction engineering methods, particularly using laminated wood, have changed plain old radiata pine from an export commodity into a high quality engineering material. There seems little sense in exporting raw logs when they could be successfully turned into high quality construction products right here and save on the need to import other construction materials. In other words we can create jobs rather than export them.
There is, therefore, no reason that Christchurch cannot become a world-leader in innovative, medium-rise wooden commercial buildings. We have sufficient wood resources and we now have among us the designers, architects, construction engineers and builders with the expertise to get on with the job, and many are waiting to do just that.
More:
Stuff
World Architecture News
NZ Wood
Select Committee on the Alcohol Reform Bill I recently appeared before the Select Committee on the Alcohol Reform Bill to speak to my submission which called for a number of crucial measures to address this country’s heavy drinking culture.
In particular, I urged the Committee to recommend a return of the minimum drinking age to 20 years, with no exceptions, to seek advice from officials on how a minimum price regime could be introduced to ensure a reduction in alcohol consumption, to stop the advertising of alcohol (other than that which communicates product information) and to develop a blueprint for addiction service delivery for the next five years.
In its report, the Law Commission recommended that blood alcohol limits be reduced from 80mgs of alcohol per 100mls of blood to 50mgs for all drivers, with zero tolerance for drivers under 20 years of age. Despite that, the Government said it needs more evidence before making any changes, and has decided not to lower the limit at this stage. I asked the Committee to review that position as I believe there is sufficient evidence already available, including the Ministry of Transport saying that the single most effective measure the Government could enact to decrease drunk driving deaths, injury and social/economic and human costs would be to decrease the drink driving limit from 80mgs to 50mgs per 100mls of blood.
Similarly, when blood alcohol levels were reduced from 50mgs to 20mgs in Sweden there was a 10% reduction in road/driving fatalities. It is that simple.
Although most measures in the Alcohol Reform Bill are positive, its failure to include the steps I have set out reflects a serious deficiency in what is our best opportunity for years to deal comprehensively with alcohol reform in general and its outrageous toll on our communities in particular.
There is no doubt that, as long as alcohol continues to be sold as a normal commodity at neighbourhood stores and supermarkets, there will continue to be billions of dollars of harm in New Zealand each year, including 20 deaths per week and 70,000 alcohol-related physical and sexual assaults each year. That is 1350 per week. One third of all police arrests involve alcohol, and it just doesn’t seem too difficult to do something about it.
Government, not quake, caused greatest deficit in history
I am confident that the New Zealand public will see John Key and his National Government’s claim that the “biggest budget deficit in history” is just a result of the Canterbury earthquake as the nonsense it is.
John Key recently told TVNZ that the May 19 Budget will include the biggest deficit in history mainly because of the cost of the rebuild and recovery in Christchurch. That claim is simply untrue and designed to conceal the devastating effects of last year’s bad economic decisions made by him and his government
The Government is conveniently using the earthquakes to mask something we all know; that the National Government has no economic plan and that the recession is a result of its inept management. Even Treasury said in its recent update that two thirds of the deficit was happening before the 22 February earthquake hit.
While we cannot argue that the earthquakes have not had an impact, the economy was already deeply in the red. That’s because the Government’s so-called “tax switch” last year was not revenue neutral as it claimed. In fact it has given billions of dollars more to top earners than we could afford.
To now blame Christchurch is an insult to the hardworking people who are trying to put the city back together.
The other thing that John Key fails to take into account is that the cost of the earthquakes does not have to be met in a single year, and no-one expects the rebuild to be completed in a year.
Care needed with biosecurity charges
The new Biosecurity Law Reform Bill currently being debated in parliament will make it possible for farmers to be charged for the cost of cleaning up biosecurity incursions as well as the cost of keeping pests out.
While I accept that industry should make some contribution towards biosecurity costs, in its current form the proposed law is impractical and doesn’t take account of the possible consequences for the entire agricultural and horticultural sectors if they are charged the full amount for biosecurity protections. An across the board charge is impractical and any imposition of costs has to be carefully considered.
But in what is currently proposed there isn’t an even match between costs of biosecurity protection and sectors that reap the benefits.
The last Labour-Progressive government recognised the principle of getting businesses with a stake in the outcome to shoulder some of the responsibility of keeping pests out, but it doesn’t make sense and it is unfair to put all the costs on the sector that is being affected by a potential incursion. The benefits from one sector spill over to others.
For example, if beekeepers had been forced to cover the entire cost of keeping the varroa bee mite out, or its eradication after it arrived, that could have crippled and ended the beekeeping industry. But it is not just the beekeeping industry which benefits from controlling the varroa mite; our entire horticultural sector and much of our agricultural production depends on bees for such things as crop pollination. So even if it is not economic for beekeepers to fight varroa, it is critically important for the rest of our horticultural and agricultural sectors to have a thriving bee industry and that it why it is a much wider issue than just for beekeepers. The costs of keeping pests out would be enough to wipe out a key sector that benefits a much larger part of the economy.
The Government needs to redraft its biosecurity statute to better work with agricultural industry sectors.
There are some producers who benefit from pest control but want someone else to pay for it. But there are also industry sectors which would benefit from having a stake in making sure pests are kept out. It is essential to ensure costs don’t fall in a way that wipes out some critically important parts of our agricultural economic base.
It took little more than twenty seconds, but the Christchurch earthquake of 22 February brought terror to a city that was almost unimaginable. Someone asked me whether the images on television and newspapers exaggerated the event, but they did not. In that short time, buildings toppled and roads buckled and cracked in a way that I never imagined possible, and far outweighed the damage caused by the earlier quakes in September last year.
Although I was in Wellington when the 22 February quake struck, my wife Carole was driving home through the Christchurch city centre and so powerful was the force she thought the car had been hit by a truck.
It is good to be able to report that our families and my Christchurch staff are all safe and well, although all have suffered some damage to homes and sections. The roof in our home was badly damaged and we have had to revert to that old practice of getting out the buckets to catch the drips when it rains.
While, fortunately, none of my staff or family was physically injured, most have been left quite unsettled by the event, something which probably reflects the experience of most people in Christchurch. My office in Selwyn Street has been cordoned off and we have just been told that it will have to be demolished, a sad way to end around 20 years in that particular office.
We are currently looking for a new office, but in the meantime my staff and I are working out of my house and from their homes, and we are holding constituent clinics in the Rowley Resource Centre. Our phone numbers and email addresses are all the same, and so constituents needing to contact us should continue to do so by phone or email.
Now the work starts
The work rebuilding Christchurch is one that presents as many opportunities as challenges and I have been working as much as is possible with my parliamentary colleagues to ensure that we do the best for our city.
We are working at two levels. The first is in a quite practical way to assist constituents who have suffered loss or damage, whether they be residents or local business owners. Aside from such things as loss of power, sewerage and water, there are also homes and buildings which have been damaged, in many cases irretrievably. This has spawned a number of problems, with people needing to find new homes and, in many cases, finding that insurance policies didn’t live up to expectations. The other MPs, city councillors and I are also being briefed twice a week by Civil Defence and Council authorities.
The other level we are working at is at a national one, and most people will now be aware that the Government has set up a new ministry, The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA), to take charge of the recovery and rebuild from here. The National Government and Earthquake Minister Brownlee did not consult with local Labour MPs or me in the development of CERA, however it is evident that the tasks which lie ahead are too great for the Christchurch City Council alone, and so the establishment of a new ministry was inevitable.
Within its structure, CERA has a “Cross Party Forum” which will allow MPs to advise Minister Brownlee, and there is an opportunity for widespread community consultation, so we will be working hard to ensure that it is an effective body. There are, however, some real dangers with CERA, in particular with its power to relax, suspend or extend laws and regulations, and it can, for example, acquire, hold, deal with and dispose of property, and to call-in the powers and functions of a local authority or council organisation.
The work of CERA and progress towards the rebuilding of Christchurch will be reported in future newsletters.
Wood critical element in rebuild
While the Earthquake Minister may be trumpeting his view that old “dunger” stone and brick buildings in Christchurch should be knocked over and replaced, he fails to take into account that the most notable earthquake casualties, in terms of building collapse leading to loss of life, were modern buildings, their construction primarily of concrete and steel.
For some years now, I have been advocating the use of wood for commercial buildings, and the Christchurch rebuild is a perfect opportunity to showcase the merits of wooden buildings. My view is supported by mounting social, scientific and engineering evidence which shows that wood has the characteristics needed for a safe, modern city. As well as being safe, wood is a renewable resource with a plentiful supply, it is ecologically sound, less expensive than many alternatives and is an attractive, iconic New Zealand product. Strange as it may seem, laminated wood members have excellent fire resistance because the slow rate of surface charring protects the wood inside the beams and columns.
Researchers at the University of Canterbury, comparing the potential of commercial buildings constructed of wood against concrete and steel, concluded that timber construction is ideally suited to multi-storey building because of its high strength-to-weight ratio. The lightweight nature of predominantly timber buildings requires a lower earthquake loading than for a reinforced concrete one, wood being one quarter the weight of concrete for the same sized components.
Another benefit is that the new construction engineering methods, particularly using laminated wood, have changed plain old radiata pine from an export commodity into a high quality engineering material. There seems little sense in exporting raw logs when they could be successfully turned into high quality construction products right here and save on the need to import other construction materials. In other words we can create jobs rather than export them.
There is, therefore, no reason that Christchurch cannot become a world-leader in innovative, medium-rise wooden commercial buildings. We have sufficient wood resources and we now have among us the designers, architects, construction engineers and builders with the expertise to get on with the job, and many are waiting to do just that.
More:
Stuff
World Architecture News
NZ Wood
Select Committee on the Alcohol Reform Bill I recently appeared before the Select Committee on the Alcohol Reform Bill to speak to my submission which called for a number of crucial measures to address this country’s heavy drinking culture.
In particular, I urged the Committee to recommend a return of the minimum drinking age to 20 years, with no exceptions, to seek advice from officials on how a minimum price regime could be introduced to ensure a reduction in alcohol consumption, to stop the advertising of alcohol (other than that which communicates product information) and to develop a blueprint for addiction service delivery for the next five years.
In its report, the Law Commission recommended that blood alcohol limits be reduced from 80mgs of alcohol per 100mls of blood to 50mgs for all drivers, with zero tolerance for drivers under 20 years of age. Despite that, the Government said it needs more evidence before making any changes, and has decided not to lower the limit at this stage. I asked the Committee to review that position as I believe there is sufficient evidence already available, including the Ministry of Transport saying that the single most effective measure the Government could enact to decrease drunk driving deaths, injury and social/economic and human costs would be to decrease the drink driving limit from 80mgs to 50mgs per 100mls of blood.
Similarly, when blood alcohol levels were reduced from 50mgs to 20mgs in Sweden there was a 10% reduction in road/driving fatalities. It is that simple.
Although most measures in the Alcohol Reform Bill are positive, its failure to include the steps I have set out reflects a serious deficiency in what is our best opportunity for years to deal comprehensively with alcohol reform in general and its outrageous toll on our communities in particular.
There is no doubt that, as long as alcohol continues to be sold as a normal commodity at neighbourhood stores and supermarkets, there will continue to be billions of dollars of harm in New Zealand each year, including 20 deaths per week and 70,000 alcohol-related physical and sexual assaults each year. That is 1350 per week. One third of all police arrests involve alcohol, and it just doesn’t seem too difficult to do something about it.
Government, not quake, caused greatest deficit in history
I am confident that the New Zealand public will see John Key and his National Government’s claim that the “biggest budget deficit in history” is just a result of the Canterbury earthquake as the nonsense it is.
John Key recently told TVNZ that the May 19 Budget will include the biggest deficit in history mainly because of the cost of the rebuild and recovery in Christchurch. That claim is simply untrue and designed to conceal the devastating effects of last year’s bad economic decisions made by him and his government
The Government is conveniently using the earthquakes to mask something we all know; that the National Government has no economic plan and that the recession is a result of its inept management. Even Treasury said in its recent update that two thirds of the deficit was happening before the 22 February earthquake hit.
While we cannot argue that the earthquakes have not had an impact, the economy was already deeply in the red. That’s because the Government’s so-called “tax switch” last year was not revenue neutral as it claimed. In fact it has given billions of dollars more to top earners than we could afford.
To now blame Christchurch is an insult to the hardworking people who are trying to put the city back together.
The other thing that John Key fails to take into account is that the cost of the earthquakes does not have to be met in a single year, and no-one expects the rebuild to be completed in a year.
Care needed with biosecurity charges
The new Biosecurity Law Reform Bill currently being debated in parliament will make it possible for farmers to be charged for the cost of cleaning up biosecurity incursions as well as the cost of keeping pests out.
While I accept that industry should make some contribution towards biosecurity costs, in its current form the proposed law is impractical and doesn’t take account of the possible consequences for the entire agricultural and horticultural sectors if they are charged the full amount for biosecurity protections. An across the board charge is impractical and any imposition of costs has to be carefully considered.
But in what is currently proposed there isn’t an even match between costs of biosecurity protection and sectors that reap the benefits.
The last Labour-Progressive government recognised the principle of getting businesses with a stake in the outcome to shoulder some of the responsibility of keeping pests out, but it doesn’t make sense and it is unfair to put all the costs on the sector that is being affected by a potential incursion. The benefits from one sector spill over to others.
For example, if beekeepers had been forced to cover the entire cost of keeping the varroa bee mite out, or its eradication after it arrived, that could have crippled and ended the beekeeping industry. But it is not just the beekeeping industry which benefits from controlling the varroa mite; our entire horticultural sector and much of our agricultural production depends on bees for such things as crop pollination. So even if it is not economic for beekeepers to fight varroa, it is critically important for the rest of our horticultural and agricultural sectors to have a thriving bee industry and that it why it is a much wider issue than just for beekeepers. The costs of keeping pests out would be enough to wipe out a key sector that benefits a much larger part of the economy.
The Government needs to redraft its biosecurity statute to better work with agricultural industry sectors.
There are some producers who benefit from pest control but want someone else to pay for it. But there are also industry sectors which would benefit from having a stake in making sure pests are kept out. It is essential to ensure costs don’t fall in a way that wipes out some critically important parts of our agricultural economic base.
How to win an election
10/03/11 17:20 Filed in: News Releases
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.
“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.
Jim's E-News, February 2011
18/02/11 15:29 Filed in: Newsletters
Key short on answers to economy
Parliament resumed earlier this month and in my first speech for the year, I questioned whether John Key’s words about ‘aspirational’ government and his pledges for progress and prosperity for the nation were nothing more than the rhetoric we heard after the Canterbury earthquakes. Lots of hype, but little action!
Here are the problems that Mr Key faces: After more than two years of his government, economic growth has stopped. Any so-called recovery has stalled. Unemployment is going up, not down, with youth unemployment going through the roof. Jobs are being lost, not created. The cost of living is increasing, but incomes aren’t keeping pace, particularly for low to middle income New Zealanders.
You might ask what the Prime Minister’s strategy is to tackle those problems. The answer is that he doesn’t have one. His economic policy consists of asset sales. That is not an economic policy: It is a surrender of the sovereignty of New Zealand. Not one new job will be created by selling-off the people’s power companies, but every one of us will be paying higher power bills to the new overseas owners. We know this because we’ve seen it all before.
The National Party says selling assets will pay off debt. That is exactly what was said in the eighties by Roger Douglas. It’s what was said in the nineties by the National Government, and we all know what happened. We became worse off.
Mr Key says the assets will be kept in New Zealand hands. That is what they said about Contact Energy, the Bank of New Zealand, Postbank, Air New Zealand, NZ Rail and practically every other strategic asset which was privatised. And it was nonsense.
Who owns those assets now? Not the Kiwi mums and dads Mr Key talks about. The majority interests (apart from those the last Labour-led government bought back) are mainly held in Australia.
It doesn’t take too much analysis to work out that, if there is a debt crisis and the country is borrowing too much, the $43 million a week given by the National Government in tax cuts to the top ten per cent of income earners last year would have gone a considerable way to fixing the problem.
My speech to Parliament can be found here.
Victory over DB Export ad
The Advertising Standards Authority has ruled in favour of my complaint against the DB Export beer advertising campaign, agreeing with me that the presentation of film footage from the 1951 waterfront lockout riots as portraying civil unrest in response to Finance Minister Arnold Nordmeyer’s 1958 Budget was wrong and misleading. As a result, the Authority has requested that the ads in their present form be withdrawn.
The ads, set in the time of the so-called ‘Black Budget’, portray Nordmeyer as a tight-fisted old bore who taxed beer to the extent that working men could no longer afford to drink. In what was then a distortion of epic proportion, the ad went on to show archive footage of men rioting, ostensibly over the price of beer, when in fact the footage was from the 1951 waterfront lockout.
The Complaints Board agreed that footage used in the advertisements was ‘demonstrably false’ and it considered ‘the execution of ‘documentary type’ style, contrasting black and white screen-shots and accompanying authoritative narration coupled with actual footage of riots (from a different historical event) gave the impression that the advertisements were portraying a credible and realistic depiction of history’.
The Board also decided that the advertisements ‘went too far and the likely consumer conclusion was that the account portrayed in the advertisements was an accurate depiction of history, when it was no such thing’.
This ad went further than just distorting history; it was deliberately making barbed threats to politicians that any increase in the tax on beer would be met by brewing companies spending tens of millions dollars to attack them. It was no accident these ads were made at the very time the Law Commission was looking at reforming liquor legislation, including by having tighter controls over its advertising.
This shows just how far the liquor industry will go and how dishonestly they will act to protect and promote their products.
My press release can be found here.
There is more coverage on 3 News and in the Herald.
End link between alcohol and sport
Earlier this month, I spoke to the ‘Sport and Alcohol: Finding the Balance’ conference at Massey University, calling for an end to the sponsorship of sport by alcohol companies. My message was that normalising the association between beer and sport sends all the wrong messages, just as it did with the links between tobacco companies and sporting bodies in the past.The three day conference, which was sponsored by ALAC in association with Massey University, looked at a wide variety of issues, including the alcohol industry and hazardous drinking among sports people, the effects of alcohol on sport and the changing face of sports and alcohol-related culture. Interestingly, and perhaps not surprisingly, representatives of the liquor industry were nowhere to be seen.
By citing examples of the methods used by the alcohol industry to link sport and alcohol, from sponsorship at junior club level to corporate hospitality and sponsorship of sporting stars, I was able to show that even the youngest players are in no doubt that beer is an integral part of sport in New Zealand.
You have to look no further than the All Blacks to see this, with beer branding liberally plastered over their playing outfits, promotional material and almost every piece of memorabilia. The marketers know that youngsters like to emulate their All Black heroes and exploit this as much as they can. What they are doing by targeting the young is creating customers for life.
I told the conference that, as long as brewers continue to have an association with sport, there is no way of changing New Zealand’s heavy drinking culture. And by associating with sporting brilliance the alcohol industry sells more beer, and the brewers laugh all the way to the bank.
Many sporting bodies will tell us they would not survive without sponsorship from liquor companies, but that it not true. They said the same when tobacco sponsorship became prohibited; cricket was traditionally sponsored by tobacco companies but what then happened was that others, including the National Bank, stepped in. The same can happen now with liquor sponsorship. What it may require is some assistance from Government to enable that to happen. That would be a good investment.
My speech to the Massey conference can be found here.
There’s more at TVNZ and here.
Quake recovery exposes lack of strategy
A week ago I held a meeting for business owners in my local suburbs of Sydenham and Beckenham with representatives from the Christchurch City Council. Five months after the first earthquake, many of those business owners are frustrated over the lack of progress and the absence of a strategy from Council and Government giving any direction for the recovery.Worse than that, in the five months since the earthquake, the local members of parliament and even city councillors have never been briefed by the Mayor or Chief Executive, and getting accurate and timely information from council officers has proved almost impossible. That is despite the Labour MPs and me working tirelessly with residents and business owners throughout. Ironically, my office was phoned recently on a Friday afternoon to tell us that such a meeting was being held this month - just hours before
The Press published a report quoting the Mayor as saying he had scheduled such a meeting.
It is difficult for those outside Christchurch to comprehend the problems the city still faces. Despite the Mayor intimating that life has returned to normal and it is ‘business as usual’, Colombo Street in Sydenham still has cordons out onto the roadway restricting access and rubble remains lying on the street in many places. Across the road from my electorate office, an entire block of shops remain cordoned off and no-one appears to have any idea about when decisions will be made to repair or demolish the buildings, and no one seems to take responsibility or show leadership.
I told the Council officials that, at no time in my public life, have I seen such a lack of leadership and failure to take responsibility. Without leadership, those shops may still be there in five years’ time with still no one the wiser about their fate.
If there has been a positive in the last few weeks, it has been first-term city councillor Tim Carter calling on the Council to establish an earthquake committee. Similarly, The Press now appears to be running a campaign to get some sort of leadership, and these things, along with our pushing, appears to have prompted some action.
Tribute to Tom Newnham
Just before Christmas I had the privilege of speaking at the funeral of Tom Newnham. Tom is perhaps best known for his opposition to racism and for promoting racial and economic justice on the national and international stage, he was a leader of CARE, the Citizens’ Association for Racial Equality, and one of New Zealand’s leading anti-Springbok tour activists.Tom was a one-off human being. He attacked institutional racism in New Zealand and around the world with an intellectual ferocity without equal. He spoke fluent Cantonese and Mandarin. As a prominent educationalist, he wasn’t easy on himself and even took some personal blame as a curriculum advisor for the remarkable lack of knowledge which most New Zealanders have of the history of their own country.
Tom was also an integral part of the story of Centre-Left politics, being involved in the Labour Party in Mt Eden, the NewLabour Party and the Alliance following the Rogernomics revolution. I was never more proud then when Tom wrote to tell me he was joining the fight back against Rogernomics.
For Tom, social justice was a way of life, a movement continually to be sought and perfected, but he was never locked in to a narrow ideology. Not for him the name calling and character assassination so common to many of his opponents, he always recognised the potential for change in an adversary and the possibility of winning over an opponent.
Tom was a great new Zealanders and a unique human being.
NZ Superannuation, a manufactured crisis?
If ever an opportunity was lost, it was the failure of the Government’s Savings Working Group (SWG) to look at the issue of superannuation, particularly given Retirement Commissioner, Dianne Crossan’s recent report that the New ZealandSuperannuation (NZS) is unaffordable in the long term. She advocates lifting the age of entitlement from 2020, introducing a transitional means-tested benefit for 65 year-olds and effectively reducing the level of NZS against the average wage.
One of Crossan’s presumptions is that it is solely young taxpayers who fund NZS and that, as the population gets older, there will be fewer working young people paying tax to maintain an increasing number of superannuitants. That argument overlooks that many superannuitants still work and pay income tax, and neglects to take into account that superannuation itself is taxable or that every time superannuitants spend money, 15 per cent is taken as GST.
Another flaw in the argument that NZS is unsustainable is the assumption that it is paid only from taxpayer income, whereas in fact it is funded from the consolidated fund or general pool of government revenue. Similarly, it assumes that the economy will not grow at anything other than current levels, thus we will have to slice the economic cake more thinly to be able to afford to pay for NZS. There is no consideration of the potential for economic growth.
Against Crossan’s assertions, it could be argued that tax reform could ensure a decent standard of living for superannuitants?
What if National’s recent cut tax rates were reversed, allowing the $4 billion a year to be invested in the NZS fund? Surely that would go a considerable way to ensuring its sustainability.
Making it more difficult to qualify for NZS either by reducing the entitlement or raising the age of eligibility lacks both imagination and creativity, and I will be raising these issues this year to ensure that the real value of NZS is not diminished by a manufactured crisis.
Stop the link between sports and alcohol
10/02/11 15:00 Filed in: News Releases
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.
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
11/02/11 16:00 Filed in: News Releases
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.
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
10/02/11 15:02 Filed in: Speeches
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.
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.
Complaint over Nordmeyer advertisement to be considered by ASA
23/01/11 10:59 Filed in: News Releases
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:
“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.
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.
Jim's E-News, December 2010
20/12/10 13:11 Filed in: News Releases
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.
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.
Liquor industry ad an ‘Orwellian’ history lesson
30/11/10 10:57 Filed in: News Releases
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
Government out of step with the nation over liquor reform
11/11/10 16:00 Filed in: News Releases
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.
“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.
Alcohol Reform Bill
11/11/10 15:30 Filed in: Speeches
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?
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
08/11/10 16:40 Filed in: Newsletters
Opponent to review Kiwibank
Like putting a fox in charge of the chickens is how I described the decision by the National Government to appoint investment banker Rob Cameron to review New Zealand Post, the owner of Kiwibank. Had it been up to Mr Cameron, Kiwibank would not exist today.
When appointed to look at the business case for establishing Kiwibank, Mr Cameron reported to Treasury that it would neither succeed nor attract many customers. Both predictions proved wrong; Kiwibank has been a huge success and today has more than 800,000 customers.
Mr Cameron also predicted that Kiwibank would not be able to withstand the competitive response of the Australian banks. He was spectacularly wrong about that, too, and overlooked the benefits to New Zealand that occurred because the Australian banks were forced to reduce fees, improve services and stop closing branches.
The appointment of Mr Cameron to review New Zealand Post raises the obvious question about whether the it will be used as a launching pad for another round in the Government’s push to sell some or all of NZ Post and Kiwibank.
Why else would they appoint an individual who has prominently advocated for the privatisation of SOEs to help boost the share market?
The full statement can be found here.
Council inaction causing businesses to face closure
I have concluded that Council inaction and confusion in Christchurch is driving local businesses to the brink of closure following a ‘crunch’ meeting with Sydenham and Beckenham business owners, senior council staff and representatives from the insurance industry, government agencies and the commercial sector.
The meeting followed desperate calls from local owners whose businesses remain effectively paralysed two months after the 7.1 magnitude earthquake which rocked Christchurch. “Bricks, rubble and debris are piled high and have remained untouched for over eight weeks. The addition of cordons and traffic diversions are making pedestrian access a logistical nightmare for local businesses, and retail shops in particular are really suffering.
As a result of the meeting, the Christchurch City Council had effectively been put on notice to clear up the mess and put an end to the misery of local traders before many of them go out of business. Insurance companies have also agreed to treat individual cases on merit and on a ‘goodwill’ basis to speed up claims.
Too much time has been wasted since the earthquake, with conflicting advice, lack of communication and confusion over structural engineering reports, consent applications for repairs or demolition as well as new policy announcements on doubling the earthquake code requirement, all of which have delayed decisions on repairs and/or demolition. An urgent resolution is now critical, not only for the future but also for the very survival of a large amount of important businesses in Sydenham and Beckenham.
The full statement can be found here.
Also of interest:
Pleas to continue wage subsidy for quake hit firms [NZ Herald].
Sydenham retailers want action [Press]
Questions hang over future of shopping areas [Press]
Christchurch mayoralty
It took a seismic shift, but my bid for the Christchurch mayoralty was derailed by what was the third most significant natural disaster in the world so far this year. With incumbent Mayor Bob Parker trailing in the polls by 20%, the 7.1 magnitude Christchurch earthquake catapulted him into what turned out to be an unassailable lead, compounded by the assistance of an unquestioning media and the National Party in support.
Following the election result, I told a packed media conference that Mayor Bob Parker has a significant responsibility to deliver as the city’s rebuilding gets underway. I also warned that Mr Parker had received a clear message during the campaign that the secret decision-making and deals behind closed doors which had been a feature of his mayoralty would not be accepted by the people of Christchurch.
People’s Choice 2021, the centre-left coalition of Labour, Progressive Green and like-minded independents, had a successful local body campaign, doubling its representation on the City Council, from 2 seats to 4, and ensuring that community boards are now dominated by 2021 members.
I hope [the result] delivers a message to the new council that the people of Christchurch do want to see some change, and that some of the lessons learnt from the past are taken on board.
The Press summed up the post-election mood with the lead to its story: “He may have lost the mayoralty but Jim Anderton was treated like a rock star when he addressed his campaign supporters on Saturday night.”
Despite the mayoral loss, we have a great team in Christchurch and we will take the momentum from the mayoral race to the election campaign for a Labour-led victory in 2011.
And now, for something completely different
I may have lost the mayoral election, but during the campaign I discovered that I have a half-brother, Terry Byrne, living in Liverpool.
It transpires that my birth father, Matthew Byrne, left behind a family of three sons in the United Kingdom before coming to New Zealand where he married my mother. My father was subsequently killed in an accident and I was later adopted by his mother’s second husband, Victor Anderton.
Terry Byrne’s son realised the connection between our two families after reading about the story of my search for my natural father’s family origins in Drogheda, a town of 30,000 people 30 kilometres from Dublin. The rest, as they say, is history.
Although I was initially sceptical, the connection from both documents and family photographs became irrefutable.
Terry Byrne is the last of my UK siblings, brother still alive and l will go to Liverpool sometime soon to meet him.
For more, go here.
WARNING: Asset sales on Government agenda
I have warned that further asset sales could be on the Government’s agenda, and this could be one step closer with the release of the second 2025 Taskforce report which recommends that the Government should further privatise publicly-owned assets.
In a recent speech to the Fabian Society, I said that the National Party may well target power companies, roads, Kiwibank and a number of strategic local government assets such as water services, ports and airports for sale. I said the sales would be necessary to pay for the October 2010 tax cuts which gave huge benefits to the richest New Zealanders.
Asset sales coincided with the most dramatic collapse in New Zealand’s economic well-being in recent history, and led to a dramatic gap between the rich and poor. We lost 30% per capita income against Australia between 1970 and 1999, with the worst period between 1984 and 1994, the peak period when both Labour and National were selling assets.
Most of the assets sold during that period were at bargain-basement prices, the top 40 going for a total of $19 billion, just over one half of their combined real market value of $36 billion.
No example is more stark than the New Zealand Railways which was hocked off for around $400 million and allowed to become completely run down by the new American and then Australian owners. Subsequently, the Government was forced to buy back the tracks and then the rail company itself to guarantee the future of rail. The same for Air New Zealand.
By contrast, assets that have been retained have been a success; Meridian Energy’s business in Australia has returned $600 million to the New Zealand taxpayer, and been used to help pay for hospitals and schools. Most New Zealanders are opposed to selling our strategic publicly owned assets – but we have seen it done before and the National Party is indicating they will do it again if they get another term in government.
The Alcohol Reform Bill
boozedaznz – worth watching! Go to this You Tube video.
Two Drinks Max: Lobby power.
The new Alcohol Reform Bill is due to have its first reading in Parliament soon, following which the Select Committee will call for submissions from the public. This is the final opportunity to send comment to the Government about its response to the Law Commission’s review on the use of alcohol in New Zealand.
The Bill will focus on youth drinking and does not propose to deal with drink drive issues for two years, until further research is done.
The main features of the Bill include:
· Splitting the purchase age for alcohol to 18 years for on-license premises and 20 for off-license (by conscience vote).
· Restricting ‘ready to drink’ (RTDs) to a maximum of 5% alcohol and 1.5 standard drinks equals 10 grams of pure alcohol.
· Strengthening laws around parental provision of alcohol to minors.
· Continuing industry self-regulation of marketing and advertising while strengthening restrictions on advertising targeted to under-18 year olds
· Introducing default licensing hours of 8am to 4am for an on-license premises and 7am to 11pm for off- licenses.
· Implementing voluntary, local alcohol plans.
· Cutting down on excessive alcohol promotions at point of sale.
· Clarifying the definition of a supermarket.
· Undertaking further research on the effect of setting minimum price levels.
· Undertaking further research on blood alcohol levels for driving.
Alcohol Action NZ has produced submission postcards calling on Parliament to:
· Put an end to cheap alcohol, beginning with a minimum price for a standard drink.
· Make supermarkets alcohol-free.
· Ban alcohol advertising and sponsorship.
· Reduce the adult blood alcohol level for driving to at least 0.05 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood (presently at 0.08).
FREE submission postcards can be obtained by emailing: coordinator@alcoholaction.co.nz
More information can be found here.
TVNZ responds to Henry complaint
TVNZ has confirmed that comments by former Breakfast host, Paul Henry about Governor-General Sir Anand Satyanand and Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit breached standards of good taste and decency, were unfair and encouraged discrimination, in the Governor-General’s case, against New Zealanders who are not of a particular ethnicity.
In a formal complaint to TVNZ, I said that the question by Paul Henry to Prime Minister John Key, asking whether the next Governor- General would look and sound like a New Zealander, was a significant slur on the dignity and origins of the Governor-General, and in the worst possible taste.
I said that it was only after he and thousands of other New Zealanders complained about Mr Henry’s comments that Television New Zealand took the matter seriously, eventually leading to Mr Henry’s resignation. The Breakfast Show host repeatedly pushed the boundaries of good taste and was encouraged to be controversial by the broadcaster in search of ratings for its morning programme. It is not credible for a public broadcaster to egg on Paul Henry and then distance itself when he goes too far and crosses the line, TVNZ too must share responsibility.
Similarly, it is alarming that John Key just sat there and grinned when Henry made his comment. No other New Zealand Prime Minister would have allowed the comment to go unchecked. It was a significant failure of leadership, made worse by his lack of real action subsequently.
The ‘Henry’ incident was an ideal opportunity for the Government to look at the role and obligations of Television New Zealand and to refocus its position to that of a responsible public broadcaster.
Anderton addresses students at Lincoln
Telling students what it is like to be a ‘one-man band’ in Parliament was just one of the topics on the agenda when I recently addressed students at Lincoln University, just outside Christchurch.
They were described to me as an inquisitive class and they were. The 130 first year students asked a range of questions about my experience in Parliament and Cabinet, particularly given my long experience under MMP and the demands of juggling various roles and portfolios while in Government.
Conceding that, as one MP, I can’t get everything done nor can I get the media attention I might want for any given issue. However, I told the students that I picked out and put a lot of effort into a number of important areas: affordable dental care, alcohol and drug policies, superannuation, suicide prevention, banking and government support for research and development and for innovation.
Also addressed was the way in which I and the Progressive Party worked to form a cooperative coalition with Labour in government, made easier by the closeness of the philosophies and outlook of the respective parties. Although working closely with Labour, I also maintained my independence which meant that I was able to promote issues where, for example, our two parties may have had differing priorities.
One thing, I told the audience was that, while MMP can be improved, it provides better representation than the old two party, first past the post system. MMP also provides that, while the Government always has the majority in Parliament, there are more limits on its power than under the first past the post election system - the best news, I believe, those wanting a democratic form of government could hear.
Like putting a fox in charge of the chickens is how I described the decision by the National Government to appoint investment banker Rob Cameron to review New Zealand Post, the owner of Kiwibank. Had it been up to Mr Cameron, Kiwibank would not exist today.
When appointed to look at the business case for establishing Kiwibank, Mr Cameron reported to Treasury that it would neither succeed nor attract many customers. Both predictions proved wrong; Kiwibank has been a huge success and today has more than 800,000 customers.
Mr Cameron also predicted that Kiwibank would not be able to withstand the competitive response of the Australian banks. He was spectacularly wrong about that, too, and overlooked the benefits to New Zealand that occurred because the Australian banks were forced to reduce fees, improve services and stop closing branches.
The appointment of Mr Cameron to review New Zealand Post raises the obvious question about whether the it will be used as a launching pad for another round in the Government’s push to sell some or all of NZ Post and Kiwibank.
Why else would they appoint an individual who has prominently advocated for the privatisation of SOEs to help boost the share market?
The full statement can be found here.
Council inaction causing businesses to face closure
I have concluded that Council inaction and confusion in Christchurch is driving local businesses to the brink of closure following a ‘crunch’ meeting with Sydenham and Beckenham business owners, senior council staff and representatives from the insurance industry, government agencies and the commercial sector.
The meeting followed desperate calls from local owners whose businesses remain effectively paralysed two months after the 7.1 magnitude earthquake which rocked Christchurch. “Bricks, rubble and debris are piled high and have remained untouched for over eight weeks. The addition of cordons and traffic diversions are making pedestrian access a logistical nightmare for local businesses, and retail shops in particular are really suffering.
As a result of the meeting, the Christchurch City Council had effectively been put on notice to clear up the mess and put an end to the misery of local traders before many of them go out of business. Insurance companies have also agreed to treat individual cases on merit and on a ‘goodwill’ basis to speed up claims.
Too much time has been wasted since the earthquake, with conflicting advice, lack of communication and confusion over structural engineering reports, consent applications for repairs or demolition as well as new policy announcements on doubling the earthquake code requirement, all of which have delayed decisions on repairs and/or demolition. An urgent resolution is now critical, not only for the future but also for the very survival of a large amount of important businesses in Sydenham and Beckenham.
The full statement can be found here.
Also of interest:
Pleas to continue wage subsidy for quake hit firms [NZ Herald].
Sydenham retailers want action [Press]
Questions hang over future of shopping areas [Press]
Christchurch mayoralty
It took a seismic shift, but my bid for the Christchurch mayoralty was derailed by what was the third most significant natural disaster in the world so far this year. With incumbent Mayor Bob Parker trailing in the polls by 20%, the 7.1 magnitude Christchurch earthquake catapulted him into what turned out to be an unassailable lead, compounded by the assistance of an unquestioning media and the National Party in support.
Following the election result, I told a packed media conference that Mayor Bob Parker has a significant responsibility to deliver as the city’s rebuilding gets underway. I also warned that Mr Parker had received a clear message during the campaign that the secret decision-making and deals behind closed doors which had been a feature of his mayoralty would not be accepted by the people of Christchurch.
People’s Choice 2021, the centre-left coalition of Labour, Progressive Green and like-minded independents, had a successful local body campaign, doubling its representation on the City Council, from 2 seats to 4, and ensuring that community boards are now dominated by 2021 members.
I hope [the result] delivers a message to the new council that the people of Christchurch do want to see some change, and that some of the lessons learnt from the past are taken on board.
The Press summed up the post-election mood with the lead to its story: “He may have lost the mayoralty but Jim Anderton was treated like a rock star when he addressed his campaign supporters on Saturday night.”
Despite the mayoral loss, we have a great team in Christchurch and we will take the momentum from the mayoral race to the election campaign for a Labour-led victory in 2011.
And now, for something completely different
I may have lost the mayoral election, but during the campaign I discovered that I have a half-brother, Terry Byrne, living in Liverpool.
It transpires that my birth father, Matthew Byrne, left behind a family of three sons in the United Kingdom before coming to New Zealand where he married my mother. My father was subsequently killed in an accident and I was later adopted by his mother’s second husband, Victor Anderton.
Terry Byrne’s son realised the connection between our two families after reading about the story of my search for my natural father’s family origins in Drogheda, a town of 30,000 people 30 kilometres from Dublin. The rest, as they say, is history.
Although I was initially sceptical, the connection from both documents and family photographs became irrefutable.
Terry Byrne is the last of my UK siblings, brother still alive and l will go to Liverpool sometime soon to meet him.
For more, go here.
WARNING: Asset sales on Government agenda
I have warned that further asset sales could be on the Government’s agenda, and this could be one step closer with the release of the second 2025 Taskforce report which recommends that the Government should further privatise publicly-owned assets.
In a recent speech to the Fabian Society, I said that the National Party may well target power companies, roads, Kiwibank and a number of strategic local government assets such as water services, ports and airports for sale. I said the sales would be necessary to pay for the October 2010 tax cuts which gave huge benefits to the richest New Zealanders.
Asset sales coincided with the most dramatic collapse in New Zealand’s economic well-being in recent history, and led to a dramatic gap between the rich and poor. We lost 30% per capita income against Australia between 1970 and 1999, with the worst period between 1984 and 1994, the peak period when both Labour and National were selling assets.
Most of the assets sold during that period were at bargain-basement prices, the top 40 going for a total of $19 billion, just over one half of their combined real market value of $36 billion.
No example is more stark than the New Zealand Railways which was hocked off for around $400 million and allowed to become completely run down by the new American and then Australian owners. Subsequently, the Government was forced to buy back the tracks and then the rail company itself to guarantee the future of rail. The same for Air New Zealand.
By contrast, assets that have been retained have been a success; Meridian Energy’s business in Australia has returned $600 million to the New Zealand taxpayer, and been used to help pay for hospitals and schools. Most New Zealanders are opposed to selling our strategic publicly owned assets – but we have seen it done before and the National Party is indicating they will do it again if they get another term in government.
The Alcohol Reform Bill
boozedaznz – worth watching! Go to this You Tube video.
Two Drinks Max: Lobby power.
The new Alcohol Reform Bill is due to have its first reading in Parliament soon, following which the Select Committee will call for submissions from the public. This is the final opportunity to send comment to the Government about its response to the Law Commission’s review on the use of alcohol in New Zealand.
The Bill will focus on youth drinking and does not propose to deal with drink drive issues for two years, until further research is done.
The main features of the Bill include:
· Splitting the purchase age for alcohol to 18 years for on-license premises and 20 for off-license (by conscience vote).
· Restricting ‘ready to drink’ (RTDs) to a maximum of 5% alcohol and 1.5 standard drinks equals 10 grams of pure alcohol.
· Strengthening laws around parental provision of alcohol to minors.
· Continuing industry self-regulation of marketing and advertising while strengthening restrictions on advertising targeted to under-18 year olds
· Introducing default licensing hours of 8am to 4am for an on-license premises and 7am to 11pm for off- licenses.
· Implementing voluntary, local alcohol plans.
· Cutting down on excessive alcohol promotions at point of sale.
· Clarifying the definition of a supermarket.
· Undertaking further research on the effect of setting minimum price levels.
· Undertaking further research on blood alcohol levels for driving.
Alcohol Action NZ has produced submission postcards calling on Parliament to:
· Put an end to cheap alcohol, beginning with a minimum price for a standard drink.
· Make supermarkets alcohol-free.
· Ban alcohol advertising and sponsorship.
· Reduce the adult blood alcohol level for driving to at least 0.05 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood (presently at 0.08).
FREE submission postcards can be obtained by emailing: coordinator@alcoholaction.co.nz
More information can be found here.
TVNZ responds to Henry complaint
TVNZ has confirmed that comments by former Breakfast host, Paul Henry about Governor-General Sir Anand Satyanand and Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit breached standards of good taste and decency, were unfair and encouraged discrimination, in the Governor-General’s case, against New Zealanders who are not of a particular ethnicity.
In a formal complaint to TVNZ, I said that the question by Paul Henry to Prime Minister John Key, asking whether the next Governor- General would look and sound like a New Zealander, was a significant slur on the dignity and origins of the Governor-General, and in the worst possible taste.
I said that it was only after he and thousands of other New Zealanders complained about Mr Henry’s comments that Television New Zealand took the matter seriously, eventually leading to Mr Henry’s resignation. The Breakfast Show host repeatedly pushed the boundaries of good taste and was encouraged to be controversial by the broadcaster in search of ratings for its morning programme. It is not credible for a public broadcaster to egg on Paul Henry and then distance itself when he goes too far and crosses the line, TVNZ too must share responsibility.
Similarly, it is alarming that John Key just sat there and grinned when Henry made his comment. No other New Zealand Prime Minister would have allowed the comment to go unchecked. It was a significant failure of leadership, made worse by his lack of real action subsequently.
The ‘Henry’ incident was an ideal opportunity for the Government to look at the role and obligations of Television New Zealand and to refocus its position to that of a responsible public broadcaster.
Anderton addresses students at Lincoln
Telling students what it is like to be a ‘one-man band’ in Parliament was just one of the topics on the agenda when I recently addressed students at Lincoln University, just outside Christchurch.
They were described to me as an inquisitive class and they were. The 130 first year students asked a range of questions about my experience in Parliament and Cabinet, particularly given my long experience under MMP and the demands of juggling various roles and portfolios while in Government.
Conceding that, as one MP, I can’t get everything done nor can I get the media attention I might want for any given issue. However, I told the students that I picked out and put a lot of effort into a number of important areas: affordable dental care, alcohol and drug policies, superannuation, suicide prevention, banking and government support for research and development and for innovation.
Also addressed was the way in which I and the Progressive Party worked to form a cooperative coalition with Labour in government, made easier by the closeness of the philosophies and outlook of the respective parties. Although working closely with Labour, I also maintained my independence which meant that I was able to promote issues where, for example, our two parties may have had differing priorities.
One thing, I told the audience was that, while MMP can be improved, it provides better representation than the old two party, first past the post system. MMP also provides that, while the Government always has the majority in Parliament, there are more limits on its power than under the first past the post election system - the best news, I believe, those wanting a democratic form of government could hear.
Jim’s E-News July 2010
03/08/10 14:17 Filed in: Newsletters
Jim’s E-News July 2010.
Lowering the drink-drive limit is popular - why not do it? This government is so desperate to be liked it’ll make policy turns on anything unpopular, from Kiwibank and mining to foreign ownership of our land. So why won’t they follow the lead of 70% of New Zealanders who want to see the drink-drive limit lowered?
In Parliament this week, I criticised Transport Minister Steven Joyce for refusing to lower the drink-drive limit to 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood, in line with most other OECD countries like Australia.
At the moment the limit is 80mg. That is about 80% of a bottle of wine for an average man and about 60% of a bottle for an average woman, over a two hour period.
The URM poll shows that 70% of New Zealanders support lowering the drink-drive limit. Another poll on TVNZ’s Close Up program last night found that 68% favoured lowering the limit.
The truth is the alcohol lobby has got to John Key’s government and it has’t got the guts to do what’s right.
I asked Steven Joyce how he could reconcile his comments last year that the existing drink-driving limit was ‘ridiculous’ with his decision this week to spend two more years researching the ‘ridiculous’ limit.
The Motor Trade Association have said that it's surprised that the government needs a further two years of research. Our level is already high by international standards, and alcohol is recognised as a significant contributor to New Zealand's high road toll.
The Ministry of Transport has estimated that reducing the limit could save up to 33 lives, prevent as many as 680 injuries, and save up to $238 million every year.
We don’t need more research. We know that people are able to drive in this country while clinically intoxicated. That’s not good enough. What we need now is urgent action.
John Key’s government has shoved the issue in the too hard basket for reasons it is difficult to fathom.
How to keep your power bill down I chaired a public meeting last Sunday for Christchurch residents to hear from the experts on how to keep their energy bills down this winter.
Power companies based on hydro power, for example, do not emit lots of carbon, so they don’t have to pay a carbon fee. But they benefit from higher market prices for electricity.
These government-owned companies pay a dividend to the government. The profits come back to the government. There is no reason why the government can’t give some of that windfall profit back to you.
In the last election I campaigned for a $200 power rebate for people on low incomes. The chilling reality is that some people face winter power bills they simply can’t afford. When you are on a fixed income and then you get a $400 monthly power bill coming through the mail, how is that going to be paid for?
Just a quarter of the power companies’ gross profits would pay for a $200 winter power rebate for every low income household in New Zealand. That includes superannuitants.
Other countries have a winter rebate. In the UK for example the government provides a winter fuel payment of £250 for over 60s and £400 for over-80s. The State of Victoria in Australia has a similar scheme.
But I wouldn’t hold your breath with this National government. We managed to keep the ‘For Sale’ signs away from Kiwibank. But John Key has made it clear that the publically owned electricity companies could well be up for sale.
If that happens, one thing is for sure. Your power bills will go up even higher, and there will never be a chance for a winter rebate again.
A meeting like this can not only give useful advice on savings for your power bills but can give information on what to do if John Key and his government decide to sell the power companies. People need to be warned. Ask your local Member of Parliament to hold a meeting in your electorate on these issues.
Practical measures to save money on your power bills Community Energy Action’s Bede Martin and Orion Energy’s Roger Sutton set about providing practical solutions and advice at the Christchurch meeting on making efficient use of energy and reducing electricity bills this winter. The key things they recommended that can be done around the home to save $s are:
Community Energy Action’s Warm Babies Programme and Elderly Health Programme provide subsidies for those in the community most in need of a warm home to stay healthy. For more information Community Energy Action Trust on 03 374 7222 www.cea.co.nz or for advice call 0800 388 588 or www.energyadvice.org.nz
There is no way back to Kansas: Anderton speech in the House, 21 July We have just heard from the former spokesperson on the eradication of political correctness. And he wants to know why we were not making any noise while he spoke. It was because we were asleep. This is a government with no plan and no new ideas, but lots of smiles from Mr Key who is starting to look like a poor man’s Wizard of Oz. He is like a travelling magician who pulls out another trick every time that the one before does not work.
But we can only trick Dorothy and the Tin Man for so long, because the people of New Zealand are starting to see there is no plan. There is no way back to Kansas.
What has the Wizard of New Zealand pulled out of his bag so far? The 2025 Task Force? Don Brash has failed to deliver and is being kept on, to give another report next year. Yet he has run out of money already. That is some trick for the former Governor of the Reserve Bank, who was in charge of New Zealand’s monetary policy. He runs out of his budget in the first year of the task force.
Then we had the Job’s Summit. How is that going? There are no new jobs. Unemployment is on the rise. The government that my colleagues on my right and I were in halved unemployment to 4 percent by the time we went out of office. This government has increased unemployment by 50 percent already, and it is still rising.
Now the rate has almost returned to what it was under the previous National Government, and we cannot blame that on the recession, especially when the only idea to save jobs was a 9-day fortnight. That was meant to save thousands of jobs, by getting people to work less so that they were paid less, and businesses stayed afloat. That was the idea. At most it saved 100 jobs, for the whole of New Zealand.
Then John Key came up with another wizard idea. Employees could sell the fourth week of their holidays. That means the solution to New Zealand’s problems is to get people to work longer. Previously the solution was for people to work less, and now it is for them to work longer.
Then we had the cycle way. This was meant to create jobs. The cycle way was the great new innovation for New Zealand. Tourist industries were meant to pop up all along the cycle way. All we have seen so far is pictures of John Key on a bike, smiling as always. It will take more than a pushbike and a cycle way in New Zealand to fix up the New Zealand economy.
However, the government has the answer; it is mining. We dig up the country, just like Australia, and we’ll catch up to Australia. What happened to that idea? It is another flip-flop, because the smiling Prime Minister does not want to be unpopular. He discovered that this idea was not at all popular.
40,000 people marching in Queen Street convinced him of that. So that is not going to happen. If John Key and his government were serious about growing the economy, they would not pay just lip service to the farming sector. That sector is our largest economic earner. The truth is that agriculture makes up 43 percent of New Zealand’s exports.
There is nothing wrong with supporting tourism, but there is a heck of a lot wrong with not supporting farming, and ignoring it. If he thinks we can grow the New Zealand economy while ignoring the farming sector and building cycle ways, he is dreaming.
What kind of Mickey Mouse economics smashes the Fast Forward Fund for research in the primary sector, and cancels the Research and Development tax credit for business, in favour of a cycle way? We do away with the New Zealand Fast Forward Fund, we do away with research and development rebates for business, but we replace them with a cycle way. Now that will work. Yeah, right!
Handing over agriculture portfolio
I have announced I am handing over the role of opposition agriculture spokesperson as I want to give someone else the opportunity to get up to speed before next year’s election, given that I won’t be standing for Parliament again.
In my remaining time as an MP, I have decided to prioritise workable models for affordable dental treatment and the reform of alcohol legislation.
The Progressive Party campaigned for affordable dental treatment in the 2008 election. I have also been an active spokesperson for the +5 solution to alcohol reform which involves increasing the purchase age and curbing the sale and marketing of alcohol.
During my term as Minister of Agriculture and Forestry from 2005 to 2008, I set out to put the farming sector back where it should be, at the centre of the government’s economic strategy, after it had been demoted to a ‘sunset industry’ by former governments. I created the Fast Forward Fund which would have seen $2000 million go towards research and development in the primary sector. I will continue to advocate for agricultural issues in public life.
Affordable dental care update Since the last election, I've been looking at what it would take to introduce affordable dental care for all New Zealanders. It can be done. Our research tell us that it would cost less than $1 billion to finance basic dental care for the whole population. That includes the money we already spend on free visits for under 18 year olds. And it includes the cost of those who end up in emergency departments.
It would cost even less to give just the over 65s affordable care. I'm realistic that we would need to introduce subsidised care in stages, just like we did when we introduced affordable GP visits under a Labour-Progressive government. So why not start with the over 65s? We could raise this money either through income tax, or through a small ACC type earner’s levy. In return, people get a life time of free or affordable dental treatment.
The problem of looking after teeth in your later years is only going to get worse as the baby boomers age. In my parent’s day, teeth were extracted and false teeth provided, often as a 21st birthday present! The baby boomer generation on the other hand, will go into old age with their own teeth, often heavily filled and a number of them missing.
They're going to need help.
The other problem we have is a shortage of dentists in some provincial areas of New Zealand. There's a straight forward solution to that problem too. Bonding. At the moment young doctors can have their student loans paid off, if they agree to work in hard to staff areas for the first few years after they graduate. That scheme should be extended to dentists. It's already been extended to vets. If you have an emergency dental problem in Gisborne over the weekend, you have to drive to Napier. But getting young 'pioneer dentists' to Gisborne to work would solve that problem. Those young dentists might decide they like the East Coast lifestyle, and stay for even longer.
At the moment dental care is too expensive and fifty per cent of New Zealanders do not receive regular dental care. That's a national crisis and something has to be done. The solutions are staring us in the face, and I'll continue to fight for affordable dental treatment for all New Zealanders.
On ACC Earlier this year Ruth Dyson and I highlighted the actions of Nick Smith and the ACC which resulted in the imposition of unreasonable rules on those seeking surgery to remedy injuries caused by accidents. We predicted there would be a flood of ACC claimants seeking access to elective surgery because ACC would not fund them.
The Budget papers, released 10 days ago have proven us right.
In the first six months of last year, ACC turned down 5019 applications for surgery and the extra money Tony Ryall highlighted as being available for additional elective surgery, has gone to treat these cases with, of course, no reduction in the numbers of the waiting lists.
SIGN UP TO RECEIVE JIM’S E-NEWS IN YOUR INBOX HERE.
Lowering the drink-drive limit is popular - why not do it? This government is so desperate to be liked it’ll make policy turns on anything unpopular, from Kiwibank and mining to foreign ownership of our land. So why won’t they follow the lead of 70% of New Zealanders who want to see the drink-drive limit lowered?
In Parliament this week, I criticised Transport Minister Steven Joyce for refusing to lower the drink-drive limit to 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood, in line with most other OECD countries like Australia.
At the moment the limit is 80mg. That is about 80% of a bottle of wine for an average man and about 60% of a bottle for an average woman, over a two hour period.
The URM poll shows that 70% of New Zealanders support lowering the drink-drive limit. Another poll on TVNZ’s Close Up program last night found that 68% favoured lowering the limit.
The truth is the alcohol lobby has got to John Key’s government and it has’t got the guts to do what’s right.
I asked Steven Joyce how he could reconcile his comments last year that the existing drink-driving limit was ‘ridiculous’ with his decision this week to spend two more years researching the ‘ridiculous’ limit.
The Motor Trade Association have said that it's surprised that the government needs a further two years of research. Our level is already high by international standards, and alcohol is recognised as a significant contributor to New Zealand's high road toll.
The Ministry of Transport has estimated that reducing the limit could save up to 33 lives, prevent as many as 680 injuries, and save up to $238 million every year.
We don’t need more research. We know that people are able to drive in this country while clinically intoxicated. That’s not good enough. What we need now is urgent action.
John Key’s government has shoved the issue in the too hard basket for reasons it is difficult to fathom.
How to keep your power bill down I chaired a public meeting last Sunday for Christchurch residents to hear from the experts on how to keep their energy bills down this winter.
Power companies based on hydro power, for example, do not emit lots of carbon, so they don’t have to pay a carbon fee. But they benefit from higher market prices for electricity.
These government-owned companies pay a dividend to the government. The profits come back to the government. There is no reason why the government can’t give some of that windfall profit back to you.
In the last election I campaigned for a $200 power rebate for people on low incomes. The chilling reality is that some people face winter power bills they simply can’t afford. When you are on a fixed income and then you get a $400 monthly power bill coming through the mail, how is that going to be paid for?
Just a quarter of the power companies’ gross profits would pay for a $200 winter power rebate for every low income household in New Zealand. That includes superannuitants.
Other countries have a winter rebate. In the UK for example the government provides a winter fuel payment of £250 for over 60s and £400 for over-80s. The State of Victoria in Australia has a similar scheme.
But I wouldn’t hold your breath with this National government. We managed to keep the ‘For Sale’ signs away from Kiwibank. But John Key has made it clear that the publically owned electricity companies could well be up for sale.
If that happens, one thing is for sure. Your power bills will go up even higher, and there will never be a chance for a winter rebate again.
A meeting like this can not only give useful advice on savings for your power bills but can give information on what to do if John Key and his government decide to sell the power companies. People need to be warned. Ask your local Member of Parliament to hold a meeting in your electorate on these issues.
Practical measures to save money on your power bills Community Energy Action’s Bede Martin and Orion Energy’s Roger Sutton set about providing practical solutions and advice at the Christchurch meeting on making efficient use of energy and reducing electricity bills this winter. The key things they recommended that can be done around the home to save $s are:
- Windows are the single biggest cause of lost heat. Insulation Kits will cut down drafts and make a big difference to the warmth of your home.
- Curtains, if drawn before the temperatures drop late afternoon, will keep the warmth in.
- Use ‘door sausages’ to reduce drafts.
- Fit plastic door and window seals to keep drafts out.
- Dry clothes outside to avoid the build up of moist air.
- Shop around the power companies for the competitive price plans or talk to your power company about your options.
- A night plan on your electricity bill can cut down power usage by 20%.
- By spending $50 on energy efficient bulbs, you can save an average of $100 a year.
- Heating water is one of the single biggest energy users. Insulating your water cylinder can save up to $100 a year on the fuel bill.
- Roof insulation can save up to $500 a year.
- Turning the beer fridge on only in the weekend can save $100 a year.
- Turning off a heated towel rail can save $100 a year.
- $150 a year is being wasted on appliances left on stand-by mode.
- Avoid using unflued gas heaters as they create moisture and are very expensive to run, plus they have health disadvantages.
- It is not necessary to have a heat pump running continuously. Put it on a timer and only use to heat up rooms when required.
- Shower rather than bath to save on hot water.
- Shop around for the best deals with insulation and heating options. Some companies quote a lower level of insulation or energy efficiency than is practical.
Community Energy Action’s Warm Babies Programme and Elderly Health Programme provide subsidies for those in the community most in need of a warm home to stay healthy. For more information Community Energy Action Trust on 03 374 7222 www.cea.co.nz or for advice call 0800 388 588 or www.energyadvice.org.nz
There is no way back to Kansas: Anderton speech in the House, 21 July We have just heard from the former spokesperson on the eradication of political correctness. And he wants to know why we were not making any noise while he spoke. It was because we were asleep. This is a government with no plan and no new ideas, but lots of smiles from Mr Key who is starting to look like a poor man’s Wizard of Oz. He is like a travelling magician who pulls out another trick every time that the one before does not work.
But we can only trick Dorothy and the Tin Man for so long, because the people of New Zealand are starting to see there is no plan. There is no way back to Kansas.
What has the Wizard of New Zealand pulled out of his bag so far? The 2025 Task Force? Don Brash has failed to deliver and is being kept on, to give another report next year. Yet he has run out of money already. That is some trick for the former Governor of the Reserve Bank, who was in charge of New Zealand’s monetary policy. He runs out of his budget in the first year of the task force.
Then we had the Job’s Summit. How is that going? There are no new jobs. Unemployment is on the rise. The government that my colleagues on my right and I were in halved unemployment to 4 percent by the time we went out of office. This government has increased unemployment by 50 percent already, and it is still rising.
Now the rate has almost returned to what it was under the previous National Government, and we cannot blame that on the recession, especially when the only idea to save jobs was a 9-day fortnight. That was meant to save thousands of jobs, by getting people to work less so that they were paid less, and businesses stayed afloat. That was the idea. At most it saved 100 jobs, for the whole of New Zealand.
Then John Key came up with another wizard idea. Employees could sell the fourth week of their holidays. That means the solution to New Zealand’s problems is to get people to work longer. Previously the solution was for people to work less, and now it is for them to work longer.
Then we had the cycle way. This was meant to create jobs. The cycle way was the great new innovation for New Zealand. Tourist industries were meant to pop up all along the cycle way. All we have seen so far is pictures of John Key on a bike, smiling as always. It will take more than a pushbike and a cycle way in New Zealand to fix up the New Zealand economy.
However, the government has the answer; it is mining. We dig up the country, just like Australia, and we’ll catch up to Australia. What happened to that idea? It is another flip-flop, because the smiling Prime Minister does not want to be unpopular. He discovered that this idea was not at all popular.
40,000 people marching in Queen Street convinced him of that. So that is not going to happen. If John Key and his government were serious about growing the economy, they would not pay just lip service to the farming sector. That sector is our largest economic earner. The truth is that agriculture makes up 43 percent of New Zealand’s exports.
There is nothing wrong with supporting tourism, but there is a heck of a lot wrong with not supporting farming, and ignoring it. If he thinks we can grow the New Zealand economy while ignoring the farming sector and building cycle ways, he is dreaming.
What kind of Mickey Mouse economics smashes the Fast Forward Fund for research in the primary sector, and cancels the Research and Development tax credit for business, in favour of a cycle way? We do away with the New Zealand Fast Forward Fund, we do away with research and development rebates for business, but we replace them with a cycle way. Now that will work. Yeah, right!
Handing over agriculture portfolio
I have announced I am handing over the role of opposition agriculture spokesperson as I want to give someone else the opportunity to get up to speed before next year’s election, given that I won’t be standing for Parliament again.
In my remaining time as an MP, I have decided to prioritise workable models for affordable dental treatment and the reform of alcohol legislation.
The Progressive Party campaigned for affordable dental treatment in the 2008 election. I have also been an active spokesperson for the +5 solution to alcohol reform which involves increasing the purchase age and curbing the sale and marketing of alcohol.
During my term as Minister of Agriculture and Forestry from 2005 to 2008, I set out to put the farming sector back where it should be, at the centre of the government’s economic strategy, after it had been demoted to a ‘sunset industry’ by former governments. I created the Fast Forward Fund which would have seen $2000 million go towards research and development in the primary sector. I will continue to advocate for agricultural issues in public life.
Affordable dental care update Since the last election, I've been looking at what it would take to introduce affordable dental care for all New Zealanders. It can be done. Our research tell us that it would cost less than $1 billion to finance basic dental care for the whole population. That includes the money we already spend on free visits for under 18 year olds. And it includes the cost of those who end up in emergency departments.
It would cost even less to give just the over 65s affordable care. I'm realistic that we would need to introduce subsidised care in stages, just like we did when we introduced affordable GP visits under a Labour-Progressive government. So why not start with the over 65s? We could raise this money either through income tax, or through a small ACC type earner’s levy. In return, people get a life time of free or affordable dental treatment.
The problem of looking after teeth in your later years is only going to get worse as the baby boomers age. In my parent’s day, teeth were extracted and false teeth provided, often as a 21st birthday present! The baby boomer generation on the other hand, will go into old age with their own teeth, often heavily filled and a number of them missing.
They're going to need help.
The other problem we have is a shortage of dentists in some provincial areas of New Zealand. There's a straight forward solution to that problem too. Bonding. At the moment young doctors can have their student loans paid off, if they agree to work in hard to staff areas for the first few years after they graduate. That scheme should be extended to dentists. It's already been extended to vets. If you have an emergency dental problem in Gisborne over the weekend, you have to drive to Napier. But getting young 'pioneer dentists' to Gisborne to work would solve that problem. Those young dentists might decide they like the East Coast lifestyle, and stay for even longer.
At the moment dental care is too expensive and fifty per cent of New Zealanders do not receive regular dental care. That's a national crisis and something has to be done. The solutions are staring us in the face, and I'll continue to fight for affordable dental treatment for all New Zealanders.
On ACC Earlier this year Ruth Dyson and I highlighted the actions of Nick Smith and the ACC which resulted in the imposition of unreasonable rules on those seeking surgery to remedy injuries caused by accidents. We predicted there would be a flood of ACC claimants seeking access to elective surgery because ACC would not fund them.
The Budget papers, released 10 days ago have proven us right.
In the first six months of last year, ACC turned down 5019 applications for surgery and the extra money Tony Ryall highlighted as being available for additional elective surgery, has gone to treat these cases with, of course, no reduction in the numbers of the waiting lists.
SIGN UP TO RECEIVE JIM’S E-NEWS IN YOUR INBOX HERE.
Lowering the drink-drive limit is popular - why not do it?
28/07/10 15:43 Filed in: News Releases
“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
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
Odyssey House 25th Anniversary
07/05/10 12:29 Filed in: Speeches
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.
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.
Tobacco Excise bill
04/05/10 10:16 Filed in: Speeches
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.
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
27/04/10 17:59 Filed in: News Releases
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.
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
22/04/10 17:26 Filed in: News Releases
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:
“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.
“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
22/04/10 17:24 Filed in: News Releases
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.
“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.
Beer in a can recipe for trouble
02/04/10 16:27 Filed in: News Releases
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 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.
Speech to the Alcohol Causes Violence conference
23/03/10 14:00 Filed in: Speeches
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.
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.
Jim's E-News, Christmas 2009
17/12/09 17:00 Filed in: Newsletters
I’d like to wish a Happy Christmas and a good new year.
As we head off to spend holiday time with loved ones, and take a break from the pressures of daily life, this will be my last e-newsletter for 2009. It’s been a busy year, and an adjustment for us all to be in opposition. One bad day in government is worth a thousand good ones in opposition because in government you can make decisions which you know will help people and change lives.
Now we don’t have control of the purse strings. But we are making the most of our days in opposition to hold this government to account. It’s not only what the National-led government does that matters - it’s what it doesn’t do. And I don’t see any bright ideas or new initiatives which will create jobs, or support those with big new ideas to help us trade better with the world.
I see indecisive leadership from John Key, budget cuts, cuts to ACC, and looming problems with coalition partners like Act on the extreme right, and the Maori Party which seems hell-bent on being the party of Maori corporations and the affluent elite.
2010 will be a busy year. We will keep the pressure on this government to see more done for ordinary New Zealanders, Maori and Pakeha. We won’t let them get away with sitting back and hoping that ‘she’ll be right’ after a year of recession. New Zealand needs bigger ideas and more guts than a government which so far has come up with one idea; a national cycle pathway.
That’s not good enough after a year in government.
Enjoy the holiday season, and we’ll be back in 2010 ready to hit the ground running.
Here’s a summary of recent news items to give you an idea of what I’ve been doing in parliament and the electorate recently.
Feedback on dental care issues for New Zealanders
After the last e-news went out, I have received a range of communications, letters and emails on ways our dental system could be improved. It is generally agreed that cost is a major barrier for access to ongoing dental care for many people on fixed and low to middle incomes. Within this group, it is especially hard on the elderly, pregnant women, pre-school children and those with large families.
I am working on getting a reasonably accurate estimate of the total costs for New Zealand of the current dental system. This is quite complex but I have well informed contacts in the dental industry willing to help work on solutions.
Once dental care is free, then of course, there would be system changes. In the short-term check-ups would increase, followed by extra treatments. Over a period, the increase in check-ups and care of delayed treatments would result in improved dental health and lower treatments costs. Indeed, this is one of the reasons for making dental care free.
Correspondents are also agreed on the need for a parallel publicity campaign for people of all ages to have regular check-ups and cut down on the consumption of sugar (beverages, sweets, pastry) in favour of vegetables and fruit.
I will be in touch on the dental campaign early in 2010.
Copenhagen - New Zealand could be taking a lead, but it’s not
John Key looked indecisive when he couldn’t decide whether or not to go to Copenhagen. He only decided to go once a hundred other world leaders had bought their tickets. What kind of leadership is that?
It’s as if he accepts his presence is incapable of making any difference to whether or not the conference on climate change is a success or not. But it’s important to be there for the photo-op!
It’s that kind of non-committal attitude that is likely to see the Copenhagen talks end without agreement on clear targets for reducing emissions of carbon. John Key will have to take some responsibility for that.
As prime minister he’s making an art form out of not doing anything much (but always with a smile).
New Zealand could have been at the top table showing we were serious about climate change.
But this half-hearted participation at Copenhagen undermines our reputation for being leaders in this area and producing clean green food.
It didn’t help that John Key went to Copenhagen with a revised ETS (Emission Trading Scheme) which leaves the New Zealand taxpayer out of pocket. Big polluters aren’t paying, ordinary Kiwis are.
Someone has to pay for pollution; under National, Kiwi families will pay. The gap they have left for taxpayers to meet is $110 billion.
That’s $92,000 for each working Kiwi family.
North Shore Mayor gets unfair drubbing by Key’s cheer squad
Mayor Andrew Williams is being given an unfair drubbing by John Key and the media. He has been texting the Prime Minister about the Auckland Super City, and why not? John Key is a North Shore MP. So far, no-one has produced any evidence that these texts are abusive or that they were at an excessively late hour.
The media are showing their bias and are not listening to what Mayor Williams is saying. They are repeating the lines given to them by John Key on timing of text messages and that Mayor Williams messages have been ‘aggressive’. They are ignoring William’s criticisms of the National-ACT legislation for Auckland’s new Super City.
Where are the hard questions to the North Shore MPs, including John Key, on the issues that Andrew Williams wants answers to and is entitled to as Mayor of the North Shore? The media should be following up on that.
Andrew Williams has produced his phone records but it makes no difference. John Key is not being asked to prove his allegations about Williams. That doesn’t seem fair to me.
Andrew Williams is an outspoken mayor – but then all good mayors are outspoken. That’s their job!
He’s just trying to stop unacceptable and unpopular legislation as it’s rushed through the House before people have a chance to understand the real implications.
It is sad to see the very good relations that the Labour-Progressive government had with local government during the past nine years degenerate so quickly – but it is happening in so many areas so fast, that I guess it is par for the course and I predict we will see more of it in 2010.
Intensive dairy farming in the MacKenzie basin - our reputation is at risk
Reputation is everything. Copenhagen hasn’t helped. Neither has the application from three companies in the MacKenzie Basin a few weeks ago to use stall-based farming. This is the kind of farming where cows can be kept in boxes for 24 hours a day, eight months of the year.
When I was Minister of Agriculture in the last Labour-Progressive government, I went to Korea and Japan to advocate for our pastoral farming techniques. There was huge interest in our ability to produce lean meat that was healthier than the high fat content meat produced in Japan and Korea.
Many in those countries know their own meat is unhealthy and there was genuine interest in our approach to natural animal husbandry. There was an acknowledgement that New Zealand creates a high quality healthy product, compared to their own meat.
I saw grain-fed cows in stalls. They were some of the fattest cows I have ever seen. Some of them died of heart attacks. They were so fat, of course, because they get no exercise.
It doesn’t make any sense to casually throw away our clean, free-range, lean meat reputation for the sake of keeping cows in stalls on a few farms in the MacKenzie Basin. It only takes a few negative stories to reach international consumers, and our reputation is at risk.
Farming is a sunset industry? Yeah right....
You can understand why farmers are worried about the future. Stall-based farming is a silly idea. Farmers need good ideas. New pastures, crops, animal species and techniques won't invent themselves, which is why we need a government prepared to invest in research and development.
We currently spend around 1.2 percent of GDP on Research & Development. Our peers like Denmark, however, invest three percent.
When I was Minister of Agriculture in the Labour-Progressive government, I put millions of dollars into research and development in the primary sector.
Pioneering cleaner more cost-effective ways of farming makes sense for our farming sector and for the environment.
Unfortunately within the first few weeks of government John Key and the National party got rid of the Fast Forward Fund and $700 million set aside for research and development. Since then not one cent of the promised funding has been spent on research and innovation.
I’ll be keeping the pressure on this government in 2010 to put funds into research and development because if we don’t, New Zealand will miss out. The global population is growing, and food production will continue to be a huge industry. We can’t afford not to be a leader in this market.
Brash hardly mentions farming in his 2025 Report
In Don Brash’s entire 150-page 2025 Taskforce Report, farming got just 24 words.
Back in the eighties, the late David Lange said, "Farming is a sunset industry.” Looks like Don Brash agrees. Why is the National-led government letting Don Brash loose on the economy? Because of a coalition deal with Act.
The bad news is that Don Brash is going to keep getting paid for another few years to come up with yet more destructive and back to the future ideas.
Twenty years ago, politicians in both main parties thought that instead of growing export products, we were going to be the Switzerland of the South Pacific - an economy based on banking, earning a lavish income from financial services.
We can get a glimpse of what might have been by taking a look at Iceland now - a small, isolated country, with a strong primary industry that set out to become a global financial capital. Imports of beautiful luxury cars boomed.
And when those industries all fell over in the recession, which part of the Icelandic economy is still trundling along today? What’s left of its fishing industry.
All we need to do, Dr Brash says, is follow the same prescription of deregulation, speculation and monetary irresponsibility that wrecked Iceland.
There are ministers in this government who agree with that.
But instead of going back to the failed policies of the past, there are some less disruptive things we can try.
First, we need deeper pools of capital, so that each worker is more productive. Workers in capital intensive jobs earn much more. Every Australian job is backed by 1.2 times as much capital as the average job in developed countries. Every job in New Zealand has just 0.7 per cent as much capital.
Second, we need more science, research and innovation.
But after this government axed the Fast Forward Fund which we had set up with $700 million set aside for research and development, it has spent a year doing nothing except creating another body called the ‘Primary Growth Partnership’. The PGP hasn’t allocated a single cent to research and development yet, and it doesn’t appear that any will be invested in the near future.
The Minister of Agriculture, David Carter said in parliament recently that he was ‘adhering to his own strict timetable’ for research and development funding, which appears to be to do nothing and spend nothing on primary sector research and development
We need a culture change to tackle binge drinking
Some people get very defensive when you talk about the need to change our attitudes to binge drinking. Columnist Karl du Fresne accused me and Professor Doug Sellman of being alarmist and presumably making him feel bad about drinking.
But his attack on us was a misguided reaction to what is a well-informed attempt to do something about binge drinking in New Zealand.
His personal drinking habits aren’t under attack and no-one is counting how many glasses of wine he consumes each day. I believe that three glasses of wine every day over many years constitutes heavy drinking. So does the World Health Organisation. Karl doesn’t think so, and that’s his choice.
For the record the 700,000 heavy drinkers Professor Doug Sellman and I referred to represent 25% of the New Zealand population who drink and are over 16 years old, not a percentage of the total population.
It’s ironic that Mr du Fresne’s column came out almost the same week that 300 leaders of the medical profession in New Zealand issued a statement against our heavy drinking culture, and the New Zealand and Australian police launched a massive police operation against alcohol-fuelled crime.
The New Zealand police commissioner Howard Broad said "While legislation and enforcement are key, changing the drinking culture is crucial.” We need a culture change, especially as we head into the holiday season, and commentators like Karl du Fresne have to decide whether they want to help or hinder.
Kiwibank leads big banks back to local services
It’s ironic. Kiwibank was created in part as a response to the monopoly behaviour of the big banks who were abandoning small communities throughout New Zealand. Today, those banks have seen the error of their ways and are returning to a small town near you.
Westpac’s decision to return to boutique style branches in small communities so they can get closer to where customers live, demonstrates the impact Kiwibank has had on banking in New Zealand.
Westpac chief executive George Frazis now says that it was a mistake for his bank to abandon local branches in the 1990s.
Kiwibank reversed this trend by setting up regional branches and bank outlets so that local customers had access to bank services where ever they lived. Westpac now plans to return to a local branch system.
Today, Kiwibank has by far the biggest network of any bank in New Zealand, with more than three hundred branches (at least one hundred more than any other bank) and 650,000 customers. It operates in nearly forty communities where it is the only bank service available.
We knew at the time that it was not only the right thing to do, but that it made business sense to keep banking services close to where people live.
It’s taken Westpac more than ten years to realise this, but at least they deserve credit for reversing the failed policies of the 1990s, and returning to local banking.
It’s a shame that given this re-engagement with the public of New Zealand, Westpac didn’t show up at the Parliamentary Banking Inquiry recently. We would have welcomed their views. Kiwibank was the only bank that fronted.
It’s only a matter of time now before the other banks follow Kiwibank and return to local banking.
As we head off to spend holiday time with loved ones, and take a break from the pressures of daily life, this will be my last e-newsletter for 2009. It’s been a busy year, and an adjustment for us all to be in opposition. One bad day in government is worth a thousand good ones in opposition because in government you can make decisions which you know will help people and change lives.
Now we don’t have control of the purse strings. But we are making the most of our days in opposition to hold this government to account. It’s not only what the National-led government does that matters - it’s what it doesn’t do. And I don’t see any bright ideas or new initiatives which will create jobs, or support those with big new ideas to help us trade better with the world.
I see indecisive leadership from John Key, budget cuts, cuts to ACC, and looming problems with coalition partners like Act on the extreme right, and the Maori Party which seems hell-bent on being the party of Maori corporations and the affluent elite.
2010 will be a busy year. We will keep the pressure on this government to see more done for ordinary New Zealanders, Maori and Pakeha. We won’t let them get away with sitting back and hoping that ‘she’ll be right’ after a year of recession. New Zealand needs bigger ideas and more guts than a government which so far has come up with one idea; a national cycle pathway.
That’s not good enough after a year in government.
Enjoy the holiday season, and we’ll be back in 2010 ready to hit the ground running.
Here’s a summary of recent news items to give you an idea of what I’ve been doing in parliament and the electorate recently.
Feedback on dental care issues for New Zealanders
After the last e-news went out, I have received a range of communications, letters and emails on ways our dental system could be improved. It is generally agreed that cost is a major barrier for access to ongoing dental care for many people on fixed and low to middle incomes. Within this group, it is especially hard on the elderly, pregnant women, pre-school children and those with large families.
I am working on getting a reasonably accurate estimate of the total costs for New Zealand of the current dental system. This is quite complex but I have well informed contacts in the dental industry willing to help work on solutions.
Once dental care is free, then of course, there would be system changes. In the short-term check-ups would increase, followed by extra treatments. Over a period, the increase in check-ups and care of delayed treatments would result in improved dental health and lower treatments costs. Indeed, this is one of the reasons for making dental care free.
Correspondents are also agreed on the need for a parallel publicity campaign for people of all ages to have regular check-ups and cut down on the consumption of sugar (beverages, sweets, pastry) in favour of vegetables and fruit.
I will be in touch on the dental campaign early in 2010.
Copenhagen - New Zealand could be taking a lead, but it’s not
John Key looked indecisive when he couldn’t decide whether or not to go to Copenhagen. He only decided to go once a hundred other world leaders had bought their tickets. What kind of leadership is that?
It’s as if he accepts his presence is incapable of making any difference to whether or not the conference on climate change is a success or not. But it’s important to be there for the photo-op!
It’s that kind of non-committal attitude that is likely to see the Copenhagen talks end without agreement on clear targets for reducing emissions of carbon. John Key will have to take some responsibility for that.
As prime minister he’s making an art form out of not doing anything much (but always with a smile).
New Zealand could have been at the top table showing we were serious about climate change.
But this half-hearted participation at Copenhagen undermines our reputation for being leaders in this area and producing clean green food.
It didn’t help that John Key went to Copenhagen with a revised ETS (Emission Trading Scheme) which leaves the New Zealand taxpayer out of pocket. Big polluters aren’t paying, ordinary Kiwis are.
Someone has to pay for pollution; under National, Kiwi families will pay. The gap they have left for taxpayers to meet is $110 billion.
That’s $92,000 for each working Kiwi family.
North Shore Mayor gets unfair drubbing by Key’s cheer squad
Mayor Andrew Williams is being given an unfair drubbing by John Key and the media. He has been texting the Prime Minister about the Auckland Super City, and why not? John Key is a North Shore MP. So far, no-one has produced any evidence that these texts are abusive or that they were at an excessively late hour.
The media are showing their bias and are not listening to what Mayor Williams is saying. They are repeating the lines given to them by John Key on timing of text messages and that Mayor Williams messages have been ‘aggressive’. They are ignoring William’s criticisms of the National-ACT legislation for Auckland’s new Super City.
Where are the hard questions to the North Shore MPs, including John Key, on the issues that Andrew Williams wants answers to and is entitled to as Mayor of the North Shore? The media should be following up on that.
Andrew Williams has produced his phone records but it makes no difference. John Key is not being asked to prove his allegations about Williams. That doesn’t seem fair to me.
Andrew Williams is an outspoken mayor – but then all good mayors are outspoken. That’s their job!
He’s just trying to stop unacceptable and unpopular legislation as it’s rushed through the House before people have a chance to understand the real implications.
It is sad to see the very good relations that the Labour-Progressive government had with local government during the past nine years degenerate so quickly – but it is happening in so many areas so fast, that I guess it is par for the course and I predict we will see more of it in 2010.
Intensive dairy farming in the MacKenzie basin - our reputation is at risk
Reputation is everything. Copenhagen hasn’t helped. Neither has the application from three companies in the MacKenzie Basin a few weeks ago to use stall-based farming. This is the kind of farming where cows can be kept in boxes for 24 hours a day, eight months of the year.
When I was Minister of Agriculture in the last Labour-Progressive government, I went to Korea and Japan to advocate for our pastoral farming techniques. There was huge interest in our ability to produce lean meat that was healthier than the high fat content meat produced in Japan and Korea.
Many in those countries know their own meat is unhealthy and there was genuine interest in our approach to natural animal husbandry. There was an acknowledgement that New Zealand creates a high quality healthy product, compared to their own meat.
I saw grain-fed cows in stalls. They were some of the fattest cows I have ever seen. Some of them died of heart attacks. They were so fat, of course, because they get no exercise.
It doesn’t make any sense to casually throw away our clean, free-range, lean meat reputation for the sake of keeping cows in stalls on a few farms in the MacKenzie Basin. It only takes a few negative stories to reach international consumers, and our reputation is at risk.
Farming is a sunset industry? Yeah right....
You can understand why farmers are worried about the future. Stall-based farming is a silly idea. Farmers need good ideas. New pastures, crops, animal species and techniques won't invent themselves, which is why we need a government prepared to invest in research and development.
We currently spend around 1.2 percent of GDP on Research & Development. Our peers like Denmark, however, invest three percent.
When I was Minister of Agriculture in the Labour-Progressive government, I put millions of dollars into research and development in the primary sector.
Pioneering cleaner more cost-effective ways of farming makes sense for our farming sector and for the environment.
Unfortunately within the first few weeks of government John Key and the National party got rid of the Fast Forward Fund and $700 million set aside for research and development. Since then not one cent of the promised funding has been spent on research and innovation.
I’ll be keeping the pressure on this government in 2010 to put funds into research and development because if we don’t, New Zealand will miss out. The global population is growing, and food production will continue to be a huge industry. We can’t afford not to be a leader in this market.
Brash hardly mentions farming in his 2025 Report
In Don Brash’s entire 150-page 2025 Taskforce Report, farming got just 24 words.
Back in the eighties, the late David Lange said, "Farming is a sunset industry.” Looks like Don Brash agrees. Why is the National-led government letting Don Brash loose on the economy? Because of a coalition deal with Act.
The bad news is that Don Brash is going to keep getting paid for another few years to come up with yet more destructive and back to the future ideas.
Twenty years ago, politicians in both main parties thought that instead of growing export products, we were going to be the Switzerland of the South Pacific - an economy based on banking, earning a lavish income from financial services.
We can get a glimpse of what might have been by taking a look at Iceland now - a small, isolated country, with a strong primary industry that set out to become a global financial capital. Imports of beautiful luxury cars boomed.
And when those industries all fell over in the recession, which part of the Icelandic economy is still trundling along today? What’s left of its fishing industry.
All we need to do, Dr Brash says, is follow the same prescription of deregulation, speculation and monetary irresponsibility that wrecked Iceland.
There are ministers in this government who agree with that.
But instead of going back to the failed policies of the past, there are some less disruptive things we can try.
First, we need deeper pools of capital, so that each worker is more productive. Workers in capital intensive jobs earn much more. Every Australian job is backed by 1.2 times as much capital as the average job in developed countries. Every job in New Zealand has just 0.7 per cent as much capital.
Second, we need more science, research and innovation.
But after this government axed the Fast Forward Fund which we had set up with $700 million set aside for research and development, it has spent a year doing nothing except creating another body called the ‘Primary Growth Partnership’. The PGP hasn’t allocated a single cent to research and development yet, and it doesn’t appear that any will be invested in the near future.
The Minister of Agriculture, David Carter said in parliament recently that he was ‘adhering to his own strict timetable’ for research and development funding, which appears to be to do nothing and spend nothing on primary sector research and development
We need a culture change to tackle binge drinking
Some people get very defensive when you talk about the need to change our attitudes to binge drinking. Columnist Karl du Fresne accused me and Professor Doug Sellman of being alarmist and presumably making him feel bad about drinking.
But his attack on us was a misguided reaction to what is a well-informed attempt to do something about binge drinking in New Zealand.
His personal drinking habits aren’t under attack and no-one is counting how many glasses of wine he consumes each day. I believe that three glasses of wine every day over many years constitutes heavy drinking. So does the World Health Organisation. Karl doesn’t think so, and that’s his choice.
For the record the 700,000 heavy drinkers Professor Doug Sellman and I referred to represent 25% of the New Zealand population who drink and are over 16 years old, not a percentage of the total population.
It’s ironic that Mr du Fresne’s column came out almost the same week that 300 leaders of the medical profession in New Zealand issued a statement against our heavy drinking culture, and the New Zealand and Australian police launched a massive police operation against alcohol-fuelled crime.
The New Zealand police commissioner Howard Broad said "While legislation and enforcement are key, changing the drinking culture is crucial.” We need a culture change, especially as we head into the holiday season, and commentators like Karl du Fresne have to decide whether they want to help or hinder.
Kiwibank leads big banks back to local services
It’s ironic. Kiwibank was created in part as a response to the monopoly behaviour of the big banks who were abandoning small communities throughout New Zealand. Today, those banks have seen the error of their ways and are returning to a small town near you.
Westpac’s decision to return to boutique style branches in small communities so they can get closer to where customers live, demonstrates the impact Kiwibank has had on banking in New Zealand.
Westpac chief executive George Frazis now says that it was a mistake for his bank to abandon local branches in the 1990s.
Kiwibank reversed this trend by setting up regional branches and bank outlets so that local customers had access to bank services where ever they lived. Westpac now plans to return to a local branch system.
Today, Kiwibank has by far the biggest network of any bank in New Zealand, with more than three hundred branches (at least one hundred more than any other bank) and 650,000 customers. It operates in nearly forty communities where it is the only bank service available.
We knew at the time that it was not only the right thing to do, but that it made business sense to keep banking services close to where people live.
It’s taken Westpac more than ten years to realise this, but at least they deserve credit for reversing the failed policies of the 1990s, and returning to local banking.
It’s a shame that given this re-engagement with the public of New Zealand, Westpac didn’t show up at the Parliamentary Banking Inquiry recently. We would have welcomed their views. Kiwibank was the only bank that fronted.
It’s only a matter of time now before the other banks follow Kiwibank and return to local banking.
Opening the new Rodger Wright Centre
20/11/09 19:00 Filed in: Speeches
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.
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
26/11/09 15:21 Filed in: News Releases
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
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
Jim's E-News, November 2009
16/11/09 15:00 Filed in: Newsletters
DENTAL CARE ISSUES FOR NEW ZEALANDERS
I am involving myself in a project to raise the profile of, and extend the services for, dental treatment in New Zealand.
The cost of dental treatment is a significant barrier to lifetime dental care and as a result, neglected teeth and gums are a hidden but critical problem for New Zealand’s healthcare system which needs to be urgently addressed.
It is my strongly held view that a high quality, accessible and affordable dental system should be part of the general medical health system in New Zealand. This would provide a public-private partnership which would enable all of our citizens from their earliest years right through to their last, to have their teeth cared for by qualified dental professionals at an affordable cost.
From one end of New Zealand to the other I have been made aware of the importance of this issue to a large number of our citizens, young and old, and it is well beyond time when action rather than words was seen and heard to be taking place.
I would be grateful to hear from you by email, fax or letter about your thoughts on this vital issue.
Contact me here.
ACC IS THE BEST IN THE WORLD - BIKERS RALLY, CHRISTCHURCH
Let’s be clear about one thing; New Zealand has the best accident compensation scheme in the world. It’s not broken, so why try and fix it; and no matter what Nick Smith tries to tell you - it’s not broke. It has reserves of money. It has over $11 billion of reserves, and last year it collected $1 billion more in levies, than it spent on claims.
Bikers are being unfairly targeted – Nick Smith wants them to pay three times as much in ACC levies as they are paying today.
Today motorcyclists are paying about $252. Tomorrow they will be paying $735.
This is outrageous. And it is completely unnecessary - because ACC can pay its bills without making them pay three times as much.
ACC was set up as a no-fault system to be run by a government-owned company so that everyone who has an accident gets looked after, and at a lower cost than overseas.
It was never intended to penalise certain groups that it saw as ‘high risk’ - otherwise where do you stop? If its bikers today, why not old people who are more likely to fall over than anyone else; why not 6 year boys who play rugby and are more likely to get hurt than kids playing chess?
The point of the scheme was to avoid this situation, and draw on the overall resources of the whole community. So we all pay a bit, and no one is disadvantaged. Every one avoids the very large lawyers’ bills and insurance company profits that have to be paid under a private insurance system.
We gave up the right to sue under this system, in return for the fair treatment of injured people.
The National-led government is playing dirty with the figures. It’s insisting that all imagined accidents in the future should be paid right now by people like the bike riders. But this wasn’t what ACC was set up to do. It was always intended to be a ‘pay as you go’ scheme.
That means the levies received in any one year, pay for the accidents in that year. And that system has been working fine - in fact ACC has even managed to put aside significant resources.
The real agenda here, is to set up ACC for a gradual return to a privately run insurance scheme. Scaremongering about costs is just the Trojan horse. And inside the Trojan horse is a bunch of lawyers and foreign insurance companies, licking their lips and looking forward to getting their hands on your levies!
I am entirely opposed to any private scheme. And I totally reject the National government’s attempt to make bikers pay three times as much.
URGENT INQUIRY INTO MONETARY POLICY NOW
We should put party politics aside and come up with a new approach to monetary policy which supports people in New Zealand who produce tradeable goods, rather than those who speculate on property and take the profits off-shore.
The National-led government and its coalition partners refused to take part in the inquiry, with the PM cynically calling it a ‘stunt’ from the opposition parties.
I don’t believe in the “nothing we can do” stance of this government. We could be looking to remove the incentives for those buying investment properties. Banks need to be encouraged to lend to businesses; and we need to review our tax system which at the moment encourages unproductive property investment and discourages investment in the productive tradeable export goods sector.
We need to look at regulating the banking sector so that ordinary New Zealanders don’t pay (in interest rates or hidden bank fees) while the Australian-owned banks make excessive profits.
With the National-led government complacently sitting on the sidelines, New Zealanders will be the losers for it.
To download the banking inquiry report, go here, or get in touch with my office.
BANKING INQUIRY BACKGROUNDER AND FINDINGS
The ‘big four’ Australian banks control nearly 90% of banking assets in New Zealand. The three New Zealand owned banks have 4% of banking assets.
Have the Banks made a profit?
The combined profits of the ‘big four’ Australian owned banks now exceed the combined profits of all other companies listed on the stock exchange NZX 50 series.
In 2008 Banks earned $3.26 billion; the earnings of the NZX 50 were $2.89 billion.
Did the Banks pass on the cut to the Official Cash Rate (OCR)?
The Reserve Bank cut the OCR from its high of 8.25 % in mid 2008, to only 2.5% today.
But the overseas owned banks reduced interest rates by less than the fall in the OCR. 1% margin in interest rates was not passed on to bank customers. 1% extra interest added $787 million to costs for New Zealand businesses; and 1% higher margin on loans added $460 million to the net interest costs to the farming sector.
The biggest cost was in the housing sector: 1% extra interest cost added over $1.6 billion to mortgage repayments.
New Zealand businesses are suffering
In 2009 bank lending for home loans rose about $3.2 billion (to $164.8 billion). Meanwhile business lending fell by about $3 billion (to $78 billion.)
The effects on the farming sector have been negative
Federated Farmers interest rates survey in June 2009 found that farm business overdraft interest rates had fallen an average of 2.68 % since December 2008. Meanwhile the OCR was cut by 4%.
Ordinary New Zealanders had problems paying their mortgages
In five years, Budgeting and Family Support Services has only seen one family lose their house in a mortgage sale. But in the first three months on 2009, fifteen families had already lost their home.
Have the Banks contributed to overseas debt and a housing bubble?
In the last ten years, personal lending has almost doubled, from $60 billion to $105 billion; most of the lending has been for housing.
Home loans now make up 55% of bank lending, up from 35% ten years ago. The banks borrowed more money to fund property price increases which contributed to a rise in overseas debt.
Between 2003 and 2009 net overseas liabilities rose from $100.6 billion to $176.3 billion; that’s a rise from 76.8% of GDP to 98%.
What have the banks got to do with our volatile exchange rate?
High overseas borrowing has impacted on the exchange rate which is subject to high volatility. The export sector makes up roughly 30% of GDP - about $40 billion per year but suffers the most from currency instability which means uncertain returns.
PROGRESSIVE SUBMISSION ON THE LAW COMMISSION PAPER: ‘ALCOHOL IN OUR LIVES’ I am under no illusion about the challenge involved if we are to seriously reduce the harm caused by alcohol. But doing nothing is not an option.
Alcohol is by far the most damaging drug in the country. It causes between $2-$3 billion dollars worth of economic and social harm each year. The personal cost to families and loved ones is incalculable. How can we measure the cost of a family tragedy?
One of the most damaging drugs we face right now is not even illegal; our kids can buy it in the local dairy; they play sports and have it promoted to them all the time; they see it on TV, on billboards and hear about it on the radio.
The abuse of alcohol amongst our young people is on the rise and it’s destroying lives.
I have been working with others like Dr Doug Sellman of the Otago School of Medicine to raise awareness of the damage that alcohol is causing. We have a unique opportunity right now to do something, through the Law Commission’s review of the legislation to do with the drinking age, the availability and the advertising of alcohol.
Did you know that every advertisement seen by a young person increases the number of drinks they consume by 1%. They become customers for life. And people like you end up picking up the pieces.
Currently, $200,000 per day is spent on marketing and advertising alcohol. About half the marketing is spent on sponsorship.
I welcome the Law Commission’s issues paper which gives New Zealanders a unique opportunity to reform the legal framework in which alcohol is sold, advertised and promoted.
It gives us a chance today to do more to protect New Zealanders from the harm caused by the abuse of alcohol.
The Progressive Party submission calls on the Law Commission to do more in its final recommendations to guide law makers on how to further curb alcohol advertising, particularly to the most vulnerable New Zealanders - the young. I would like to see more options put forward by the Law Commission on how we can greatly reduce the availability of alcohol to young people. I have also given my opinions and made comments on every option put forward in the Law Commission’s paper, ‘Alcohol in our Lives’.
For the full submission: go here.
For my speech to the National CAYAD hui, go here.
"Ten things the alcohol industry won't tell you about alcohol"
Alcohol Action are holding their last two last meetings this week with presenter Dr. Doug Sellman.
The meetings are at: CHRISTCHURCH: Art Gallery Theatre, Tuesday 17th November, 7.30-9pm PORIRUA: Helen Smith Community Room, Wednesday 18th November, 7.30-9pm
There is still time to get in a late submissions to the Law Commission.
Use milk payout to farmers to strengthen industry
It's important that the increase in Fonterra's payout to farmers is used to strengthen the industry, and not squandered.
The increased pay out is very timely for a large number of farmers who have been struggling with higher input prices and enormous costs for financing. Interest rates for many farmers have not come down.
But the risk is that the higher payout will lead to higher farm valuations and in turn to yet more farm indebtedness. That's what happened too often when the milk payout reached $7 a kilo. When the price then dropped, it left a lot of farmers under mortgage stress.
Banks should be careful about getting into the same position of lending against valuations based on favourable milk payouts.
The payout shows New Zealand is well positioned as a food producer to continue to earn a living when global conditions are less than favourable.
When payouts increase as much as this one has, the extra earnings need to be used to strengthen the industry, for example by stronger investment in research and development, and strenthening balance sheets to reduce our exposure to rapacious overseas owned banks.
A generation of kids will be lost – New Zealand must do more
Launch of the Mutima Project in Christchurch
16,000 children are dying from hunger every day because food aid is now at its lowest level in twenty years, but the National government remains determined not to use our aid for ‘poverty reduction.
The head of the United Nation’s World Food Programme recently announced that tens of millions of the world’s poor will have their food rations cut or cancelled in the next few weeks because some OECD countries have slashed aid after the financial crisis.
The Mutima project is a volunteer organisation and will send a team of cardiac surgeons to Zambia to perform life-saving heart surgery on young adults.
I commend them for the strength of their personal commitment and their determination to serve. We are a stronger and more caring community because of people like these Christchurch surgeons. Because of them, a hundred young Zambians will have a second chance at life.
About 60% of the Zambian population are living on less than a $1 per day.
But where is the urgency from the National government to save a generation of children who will die from starvation if the world does nothing?
The National government has recently announced that it will abolish the goal of ‘poverty reduction’ for our aid, and replace it with a goal of ‘economic development’.
I am a strong champion of economic development but you can’t do much business development if people don’t have enough to eat or clean water to drink.
I want to see the National government do more about bad governance and corruption in some of the poorest countries and see New Zealand get behind a new international Natural Resource Charter which sets out ‘best practice’ in countries with natural resources like oil (or copper in Zambia), so proceeds of those resources go to the poorest people and don’t end up in the pockets of the corrupt.
For the speech, go here.
Who owns the ASB? Not us.
The ASB has been an Australian owned bank for the last two decades, and it is misleading the public when it pretends to be a ‘Kiwi Bank’.
The ABS is running promotional ads claiming ‘We’ve been a Kiwi Bank since 1847’.
The truth is we don’t really know who owns the ASB. We know it is owned 100% by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA), but who owns the Commonwealth Bank?
It used to be owned by the Federal Government of Australia but it was privatised in stages beginning in 1991.
Almost half of the current owners of the Commonwealth Bank are ‘nominee’ companies.
That means their identities are hidden behind other well-known companies, like the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC).
We don’t really know who owns ASB. All we know for sure is that New Zealand doesn’t.
For the release, go here.
An ‘unfortunate arrangement’
The Auditor General’s findings about Bill English’s accommodation arrangements go significantly further than findings that caused Marion Hobbs and Phillida Bunkle to stand down from ministerial office in 2001. This makes Mr English’s position as finance minister very difficult. I have been in the same position as Mr Key, in having to make a decision on the future of the Minister. A precedent for the right thing to do has been set.
I wrote to the Auditor-General saying Mr English’ arrangements needed scrutiny. The report finds Mr English’s arrangements were not within the rules. The Auditor General’s report states:
The result was that the Crown was renting a property for Mr English from a trust in which he had an interest, and the arrangement was explicitly based on a view that he did not have an interest. Clearly, this was unfortunate.
The report discloses Mr English went to some lengths to arrange his affairs around the accommodation allowance entitlement. That is not a good look for a Minister of Finance.
The Auditor-General’s advice does not even mention other issues that the Prime Minister still needs to consider: that Mr English was giving his Wellington address as his home for the purpose of being a director of a company (incidentally, the company that owns his Dipton investment), but claiming to live in Dipton for the purpose of receiving an accommodation allowance.
A prudent minister might have noticed the contradiction between those two claims.
I have always welcomed the idea of Mr English having his family with him in Wellington. That is not the issue. The question is whether he was right to claim entitlements for doing so. It would not have been in any way objectionable if Mr English had lived in Wellington with his family and claimed an out of town allowance for his occasional trips to Dipton.
For the release, go here.
I am involving myself in a project to raise the profile of, and extend the services for, dental treatment in New Zealand.
The cost of dental treatment is a significant barrier to lifetime dental care and as a result, neglected teeth and gums are a hidden but critical problem for New Zealand’s healthcare system which needs to be urgently addressed.
It is my strongly held view that a high quality, accessible and affordable dental system should be part of the general medical health system in New Zealand. This would provide a public-private partnership which would enable all of our citizens from their earliest years right through to their last, to have their teeth cared for by qualified dental professionals at an affordable cost.
From one end of New Zealand to the other I have been made aware of the importance of this issue to a large number of our citizens, young and old, and it is well beyond time when action rather than words was seen and heard to be taking place.
I would be grateful to hear from you by email, fax or letter about your thoughts on this vital issue.
Contact me here.
ACC IS THE BEST IN THE WORLD - BIKERS RALLY, CHRISTCHURCH
Let’s be clear about one thing; New Zealand has the best accident compensation scheme in the world. It’s not broken, so why try and fix it; and no matter what Nick Smith tries to tell you - it’s not broke. It has reserves of money. It has over $11 billion of reserves, and last year it collected $1 billion more in levies, than it spent on claims.
Bikers are being unfairly targeted – Nick Smith wants them to pay three times as much in ACC levies as they are paying today.
Today motorcyclists are paying about $252. Tomorrow they will be paying $735.
This is outrageous. And it is completely unnecessary - because ACC can pay its bills without making them pay three times as much.
ACC was set up as a no-fault system to be run by a government-owned company so that everyone who has an accident gets looked after, and at a lower cost than overseas.
It was never intended to penalise certain groups that it saw as ‘high risk’ - otherwise where do you stop? If its bikers today, why not old people who are more likely to fall over than anyone else; why not 6 year boys who play rugby and are more likely to get hurt than kids playing chess?
The point of the scheme was to avoid this situation, and draw on the overall resources of the whole community. So we all pay a bit, and no one is disadvantaged. Every one avoids the very large lawyers’ bills and insurance company profits that have to be paid under a private insurance system.
We gave up the right to sue under this system, in return for the fair treatment of injured people.
The National-led government is playing dirty with the figures. It’s insisting that all imagined accidents in the future should be paid right now by people like the bike riders. But this wasn’t what ACC was set up to do. It was always intended to be a ‘pay as you go’ scheme.
That means the levies received in any one year, pay for the accidents in that year. And that system has been working fine - in fact ACC has even managed to put aside significant resources.
The real agenda here, is to set up ACC for a gradual return to a privately run insurance scheme. Scaremongering about costs is just the Trojan horse. And inside the Trojan horse is a bunch of lawyers and foreign insurance companies, licking their lips and looking forward to getting their hands on your levies!
I am entirely opposed to any private scheme. And I totally reject the National government’s attempt to make bikers pay three times as much.
URGENT INQUIRY INTO MONETARY POLICY NOW
We should put party politics aside and come up with a new approach to monetary policy which supports people in New Zealand who produce tradeable goods, rather than those who speculate on property and take the profits off-shore.
The National-led government and its coalition partners refused to take part in the inquiry, with the PM cynically calling it a ‘stunt’ from the opposition parties.
I don’t believe in the “nothing we can do” stance of this government. We could be looking to remove the incentives for those buying investment properties. Banks need to be encouraged to lend to businesses; and we need to review our tax system which at the moment encourages unproductive property investment and discourages investment in the productive tradeable export goods sector.
We need to look at regulating the banking sector so that ordinary New Zealanders don’t pay (in interest rates or hidden bank fees) while the Australian-owned banks make excessive profits.
With the National-led government complacently sitting on the sidelines, New Zealanders will be the losers for it.
To download the banking inquiry report, go here, or get in touch with my office.
BANKING INQUIRY BACKGROUNDER AND FINDINGS
The ‘big four’ Australian banks control nearly 90% of banking assets in New Zealand. The three New Zealand owned banks have 4% of banking assets.
Have the Banks made a profit?
The combined profits of the ‘big four’ Australian owned banks now exceed the combined profits of all other companies listed on the stock exchange NZX 50 series.
In 2008 Banks earned $3.26 billion; the earnings of the NZX 50 were $2.89 billion.
Did the Banks pass on the cut to the Official Cash Rate (OCR)?
The Reserve Bank cut the OCR from its high of 8.25 % in mid 2008, to only 2.5% today.
But the overseas owned banks reduced interest rates by less than the fall in the OCR. 1% margin in interest rates was not passed on to bank customers. 1% extra interest added $787 million to costs for New Zealand businesses; and 1% higher margin on loans added $460 million to the net interest costs to the farming sector.
The biggest cost was in the housing sector: 1% extra interest cost added over $1.6 billion to mortgage repayments.
New Zealand businesses are suffering
In 2009 bank lending for home loans rose about $3.2 billion (to $164.8 billion). Meanwhile business lending fell by about $3 billion (to $78 billion.)
The effects on the farming sector have been negative
Federated Farmers interest rates survey in June 2009 found that farm business overdraft interest rates had fallen an average of 2.68 % since December 2008. Meanwhile the OCR was cut by 4%.
Ordinary New Zealanders had problems paying their mortgages
In five years, Budgeting and Family Support Services has only seen one family lose their house in a mortgage sale. But in the first three months on 2009, fifteen families had already lost their home.
Have the Banks contributed to overseas debt and a housing bubble?
In the last ten years, personal lending has almost doubled, from $60 billion to $105 billion; most of the lending has been for housing.
Home loans now make up 55% of bank lending, up from 35% ten years ago. The banks borrowed more money to fund property price increases which contributed to a rise in overseas debt.
Between 2003 and 2009 net overseas liabilities rose from $100.6 billion to $176.3 billion; that’s a rise from 76.8% of GDP to 98%.
What have the banks got to do with our volatile exchange rate?
High overseas borrowing has impacted on the exchange rate which is subject to high volatility. The export sector makes up roughly 30% of GDP - about $40 billion per year but suffers the most from currency instability which means uncertain returns.
PROGRESSIVE SUBMISSION ON THE LAW COMMISSION PAPER: ‘ALCOHOL IN OUR LIVES’ I am under no illusion about the challenge involved if we are to seriously reduce the harm caused by alcohol. But doing nothing is not an option.
Alcohol is by far the most damaging drug in the country. It causes between $2-$3 billion dollars worth of economic and social harm each year. The personal cost to families and loved ones is incalculable. How can we measure the cost of a family tragedy?
One of the most damaging drugs we face right now is not even illegal; our kids can buy it in the local dairy; they play sports and have it promoted to them all the time; they see it on TV, on billboards and hear about it on the radio.
The abuse of alcohol amongst our young people is on the rise and it’s destroying lives.
I have been working with others like Dr Doug Sellman of the Otago School of Medicine to raise awareness of the damage that alcohol is causing. We have a unique opportunity right now to do something, through the Law Commission’s review of the legislation to do with the drinking age, the availability and the advertising of alcohol.
Did you know that every advertisement seen by a young person increases the number of drinks they consume by 1%. They become customers for life. And people like you end up picking up the pieces.
Currently, $200,000 per day is spent on marketing and advertising alcohol. About half the marketing is spent on sponsorship.
I welcome the Law Commission’s issues paper which gives New Zealanders a unique opportunity to reform the legal framework in which alcohol is sold, advertised and promoted.
It gives us a chance today to do more to protect New Zealanders from the harm caused by the abuse of alcohol.
The Progressive Party submission calls on the Law Commission to do more in its final recommendations to guide law makers on how to further curb alcohol advertising, particularly to the most vulnerable New Zealanders - the young. I would like to see more options put forward by the Law Commission on how we can greatly reduce the availability of alcohol to young people. I have also given my opinions and made comments on every option put forward in the Law Commission’s paper, ‘Alcohol in our Lives’.
For the full submission: go here.
For my speech to the National CAYAD hui, go here.
"Ten things the alcohol industry won't tell you about alcohol"
Alcohol Action are holding their last two last meetings this week with presenter Dr. Doug Sellman.
The meetings are at: CHRISTCHURCH: Art Gallery Theatre, Tuesday 17th November, 7.30-9pm PORIRUA: Helen Smith Community Room, Wednesday 18th November, 7.30-9pm
There is still time to get in a late submissions to the Law Commission.
Use milk payout to farmers to strengthen industry
It's important that the increase in Fonterra's payout to farmers is used to strengthen the industry, and not squandered.
The increased pay out is very timely for a large number of farmers who have been struggling with higher input prices and enormous costs for financing. Interest rates for many farmers have not come down.
But the risk is that the higher payout will lead to higher farm valuations and in turn to yet more farm indebtedness. That's what happened too often when the milk payout reached $7 a kilo. When the price then dropped, it left a lot of farmers under mortgage stress.
Banks should be careful about getting into the same position of lending against valuations based on favourable milk payouts.
The payout shows New Zealand is well positioned as a food producer to continue to earn a living when global conditions are less than favourable.
When payouts increase as much as this one has, the extra earnings need to be used to strengthen the industry, for example by stronger investment in research and development, and strenthening balance sheets to reduce our exposure to rapacious overseas owned banks.
A generation of kids will be lost – New Zealand must do more
Launch of the Mutima Project in Christchurch
16,000 children are dying from hunger every day because food aid is now at its lowest level in twenty years, but the National government remains determined not to use our aid for ‘poverty reduction.
The head of the United Nation’s World Food Programme recently announced that tens of millions of the world’s poor will have their food rations cut or cancelled in the next few weeks because some OECD countries have slashed aid after the financial crisis.
The Mutima project is a volunteer organisation and will send a team of cardiac surgeons to Zambia to perform life-saving heart surgery on young adults.
I commend them for the strength of their personal commitment and their determination to serve. We are a stronger and more caring community because of people like these Christchurch surgeons. Because of them, a hundred young Zambians will have a second chance at life.
About 60% of the Zambian population are living on less than a $1 per day.
But where is the urgency from the National government to save a generation of children who will die from starvation if the world does nothing?
The National government has recently announced that it will abolish the goal of ‘poverty reduction’ for our aid, and replace it with a goal of ‘economic development’.
I am a strong champion of economic development but you can’t do much business development if people don’t have enough to eat or clean water to drink.
I want to see the National government do more about bad governance and corruption in some of the poorest countries and see New Zealand get behind a new international Natural Resource Charter which sets out ‘best practice’ in countries with natural resources like oil (or copper in Zambia), so proceeds of those resources go to the poorest people and don’t end up in the pockets of the corrupt.
For the speech, go here.
Who owns the ASB? Not us.
The ASB has been an Australian owned bank for the last two decades, and it is misleading the public when it pretends to be a ‘Kiwi Bank’.
The ABS is running promotional ads claiming ‘We’ve been a Kiwi Bank since 1847’.
The truth is we don’t really know who owns the ASB. We know it is owned 100% by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA), but who owns the Commonwealth Bank?
It used to be owned by the Federal Government of Australia but it was privatised in stages beginning in 1991.
Almost half of the current owners of the Commonwealth Bank are ‘nominee’ companies.
That means their identities are hidden behind other well-known companies, like the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC).
We don’t really know who owns ASB. All we know for sure is that New Zealand doesn’t.
For the release, go here.
An ‘unfortunate arrangement’
The Auditor General’s findings about Bill English’s accommodation arrangements go significantly further than findings that caused Marion Hobbs and Phillida Bunkle to stand down from ministerial office in 2001. This makes Mr English’s position as finance minister very difficult. I have been in the same position as Mr Key, in having to make a decision on the future of the Minister. A precedent for the right thing to do has been set.
I wrote to the Auditor-General saying Mr English’ arrangements needed scrutiny. The report finds Mr English’s arrangements were not within the rules. The Auditor General’s report states:
The result was that the Crown was renting a property for Mr English from a trust in which he had an interest, and the arrangement was explicitly based on a view that he did not have an interest. Clearly, this was unfortunate.
The report discloses Mr English went to some lengths to arrange his affairs around the accommodation allowance entitlement. That is not a good look for a Minister of Finance.
The Auditor-General’s advice does not even mention other issues that the Prime Minister still needs to consider: that Mr English was giving his Wellington address as his home for the purpose of being a director of a company (incidentally, the company that owns his Dipton investment), but claiming to live in Dipton for the purpose of receiving an accommodation allowance.
A prudent minister might have noticed the contradiction between those two claims.
I have always welcomed the idea of Mr English having his family with him in Wellington. That is not the issue. The question is whether he was right to claim entitlements for doing so. It would not have been in any way objectionable if Mr English had lived in Wellington with his family and claimed an out of town allowance for his occasional trips to Dipton.
For the release, go here.
CAYAD conference
10/11/09 12:00 Filed in: Speeches
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:
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.
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.
Alcohol abuse more serious than methamphetamine
08/10/09 16:19 Filed in: News Releases
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.
“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.
We have a drinking problem
05/10/09 16:14 Filed in: Newsletters
There is a culture of romanticising heavy drinking in New Zealand. All-Blacks games and the Black Caps summer cricket series drip in alcohol promotion. But we act surprised when cricketer Jesse Ryder and rugby star Jimmy Cowan get into trouble for drinking too much. The community vilifies them, rather than the alcohol companies who sponsor the games and encourage young New Zealanders to go out do exactly that - drink to excess.
A leading alcohol researcher in the United Kingdom said that “Nations, like people, can develop a pathological pattern of alcohol misuse.” That’s what has happened in New Zealand. We already had a drinking culture, but the easy availability of alcohol, the lowering of the drinking age, and the influence of the alcohol industry on alcohol-control policy has turned that culture into a pathological problem.
We shouldn’t be surprised that teenage girls have drinking problems. They see the ads, and then they walk into dairies, local supermarkets and neighborhood liquor stores where they can buy alcohol anytime they want. No wonder our young teens have a booze problem
It’s hard to say it out loud: “We have a problem with alcohol abuse”. There are a lot of people who use alcohol responsibly, and they feel like their lifestyle is being criticised. But their drinking habits are not an issue. The culture of tolerating heavy drinking is the problem.
The police know all about it. While most of us are sleeping peacefully in our beds, they’re dealing with the violence on the streets; the doctors and nurses are patching people up in our hospitals and our councils clean up the mess before we get up in the morning.
So in case you slept through the drunken chaos during any weekend, here are some facts:
The consequences of harmful drinking affect us all.
The next question is what we should do about it.
We need to reduce the availability of alcohol because research around the world has shown that there is a direct link between the availability of alcohol and the level of harm caused by alcohol.
We should increase the minimum age for buying alcohol to twenty years.
More needs to be done to help communities reduce the proliferation of liquor retailers.
The advertising of alcohol should be reduced, especially on television during the coverage of sport.
Give police much stronger tools for making pubs comply with the law. At the moment if they have serious concerns about license breaches, they have to wait until a license comes up for renewal. They should be able to do something straight away.
Most disturbing, is the continued promotion of alcohol to young people who don’t have as many choices available to them, are more likely to succumb to peer pressure and are susceptible to advertising.
We recognise there’s a problem, but then we put the fox in charge of the henhouse and expect the alcohol industry to police themselves and come up with the right policies to control alcohol consumption in our communities.
The good news is that people who enjoy the many positive features that come with drinking in moderation - enjoying friendships, socialising and having fun - are starting to see that there is a big problem in our communities, and that we need a major culture change in our attitude to heavy drinking. That means we all have to do something, because we are all affected by the abuse of alcohol.
For more information on the “Ten things the alcohol industry won’t tell you about alcohol” and the timetable for the 38 meetings throughout New Zealand, go to www.alcoholaction.co.nz .
I am chairing the meeting in Timaru on the 8th October at Sopheze on the Bay, at 7.30pm. Get to one of the meetings if you can.
The Progressive Party will be writing a submission on New Zealand’s alcohol policies to the Law Commission’s report on alcohol. If you would like to do this too, post a submission to Liquor Project Co-ordinator, Law Commission, PO Box 2509, Wellington, by Friday 30th October 2009.
A leading alcohol researcher in the United Kingdom said that “Nations, like people, can develop a pathological pattern of alcohol misuse.” That’s what has happened in New Zealand. We already had a drinking culture, but the easy availability of alcohol, the lowering of the drinking age, and the influence of the alcohol industry on alcohol-control policy has turned that culture into a pathological problem.
We shouldn’t be surprised that teenage girls have drinking problems. They see the ads, and then they walk into dairies, local supermarkets and neighborhood liquor stores where they can buy alcohol anytime they want. No wonder our young teens have a booze problem
It’s hard to say it out loud: “We have a problem with alcohol abuse”. There are a lot of people who use alcohol responsibly, and they feel like their lifestyle is being criticised. But their drinking habits are not an issue. The culture of tolerating heavy drinking is the problem.
The police know all about it. While most of us are sleeping peacefully in our beds, they’re dealing with the violence on the streets; the doctors and nurses are patching people up in our hospitals and our councils clean up the mess before we get up in the morning.
So in case you slept through the drunken chaos during any weekend, here are some facts:
- Between half and three-quarters of all police work is associated in some way with alcohol abuse.
- Sixty per cent of people arrested by the police are under the influence of alcohol at the time they commit the offence for which they are arrested.
- Researchers estimate that alcohol causes $2,400 million of harm each year.
- Alcohol abuse affects the community and people other than the drinker; forty per cent of all deaths and almost half of all other injuries from alcohol-related car crashes are to ‘innocent victims’ who were not drinking.
The consequences of harmful drinking affect us all.
The next question is what we should do about it.
We need to reduce the availability of alcohol because research around the world has shown that there is a direct link between the availability of alcohol and the level of harm caused by alcohol.
We should increase the minimum age for buying alcohol to twenty years.
More needs to be done to help communities reduce the proliferation of liquor retailers.
The advertising of alcohol should be reduced, especially on television during the coverage of sport.
Give police much stronger tools for making pubs comply with the law. At the moment if they have serious concerns about license breaches, they have to wait until a license comes up for renewal. They should be able to do something straight away.
Most disturbing, is the continued promotion of alcohol to young people who don’t have as many choices available to them, are more likely to succumb to peer pressure and are susceptible to advertising.
We recognise there’s a problem, but then we put the fox in charge of the henhouse and expect the alcohol industry to police themselves and come up with the right policies to control alcohol consumption in our communities.
The good news is that people who enjoy the many positive features that come with drinking in moderation - enjoying friendships, socialising and having fun - are starting to see that there is a big problem in our communities, and that we need a major culture change in our attitude to heavy drinking. That means we all have to do something, because we are all affected by the abuse of alcohol.
For more information on the “Ten things the alcohol industry won’t tell you about alcohol” and the timetable for the 38 meetings throughout New Zealand, go to www.alcoholaction.co.nz .
I am chairing the meeting in Timaru on the 8th October at Sopheze on the Bay, at 7.30pm. Get to one of the meetings if you can.
The Progressive Party will be writing a submission on New Zealand’s alcohol policies to the Law Commission’s report on alcohol. If you would like to do this too, post a submission to Liquor Project Co-ordinator, Law Commission, PO Box 2509, Wellington, by Friday 30th October 2009.
Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill
10/03/09 13:15 Filed in: Speeches
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.
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
10/03/09 13:13 Filed in: News Releases
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.
“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.
21st Anniversary of the Needle Exchange Programme
19/05/09 12:46 Filed in: Speeches
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.
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
19/05/09 12:44 Filed in: News Releases
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.
“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.
May Edition of Jim's eNews
29/05/09 12:15 Filed in: Newsletters
Budget Day 09 - Huge cuts in primary sector science
28.05.09
Nearly as much is being cut out of science and research in the primary sector as the government is investing in infrastructure.
The total value of primary sector science investment falls from $2 billion provided for in NZ Fast Forward under the last government to as little as $1.2 billion now.
Like for like government spending over ten years falls from around a billion dollars in the NZ Fast Forward Fund, to $610 million in the government’s replacement. “With matching private sector funding, the total investment in primary sector research and development falls by $800 million, or about 0.4 per cent of GDP.
In addition, the government has not replaced a cent of the cancelled research and development tax credit. Overall, the government is cutting innovation spending by more than the value of the personal tax cuts.
This is huge cut in science and research. It is a disaster for the future of New Zealand’s economy.
Other developed countries are preparing themselves to come out of recession stronger. New Zealand is preparing by switching from science and research to poltergeists and UFOs.
The government promised the primary sector it would spend more on science and research. It has broken that promise as surely as if it has broken its promise on personal taxes.
Winter rebate from electricity companies would be appreciated
22.05.09
The knowledge that many elderly New Zealanders huddle under blankets rather than turn on unaffordable heating should be a wake-up call to the power companies to return a winter rebate to their consumers this winter.
For many New Zealanders, this wintry weather brings on a bitter struggle with the cold and the dilemma of whether they can turn on a heater or not. Low income households, the elderly and students fear their electricity bills and well they might. I remember when the electricity bills came every two months – now the monthly bill is the same – or more – than the bi-monthly one was.
The Commerce Commission’s investigation into the wholesale and retail electricity markets showed that the electricity companies have not breached Part 2 of the Commerce Act but their extra $4.3 billion in earnings from 2001 to mid-2007 reveals they are charging with a take no prisoners mentality. The electricity companies’ profits are at the expense of New Zealand’s most economically vulnerable.
Since 2002, I have pushed for a return to consumers of some of the big profit increases from the state-owned power companies to help them with winter power bills. Low income households could be given $200 toward winter heating costs and power companies would still contribute as much to the government as they did last year. $200 would mean some households had a month of relief from winter heating costs. For superannuitants, beneficiaries and people who have lost their jobs in the downturn, it would make a huge difference.
The Commerce Commission’s ruling on the power companies should not be seen as a sign off for a return to business as usual. I am sure that New Zealanders would be hugely relieved to see the companies acting in the interests’ of their consumers with a winter rebate during this winter.
Comment on economics and the recession Response to Daniel Silva’s article in the Country-wide magazine
21.05.09
So Daniel Silva thinks that the current international recession isn’t going to affect New Zealand much. Well that’s all right then? Actually – no.
He’s quite wrong to think so for two significant reasons quite aside from the fact that any nation which earns its living as an international commodities trader is going to be affected by what happens to purchasing power in our major markets.See website for full response
Aucklanders should have elected, not appointed leaders
19.05.09
Letting Auckland vote would be a better way to make appointees to the Auckland super city transitional agency than a secret process in a government where decision-making is melting down.
Why is the government even appointing a board? The way we find people to run local government in New Zealand is we have democratic elections.
A government that listened to New Zealanders would not have a problem making a choice of leadership. The people do the appointing for it. In a democratic election, you are much more likely to get leadership that looks like Auckland. National seems interested only in leadership that looks like the National or ACT Party.
I am very concerned that the quality of decision-making in the government is falling apart as the pressure of actually governing comes on. The National government is making poor decisions or refusing to make them at all. It created a sense of urgency for itself over Auckland’s super city, and now it can’t even meet its own urgent timetable.
Needle Exchange Programme proven it worth
19.05.09
On the 21st Anniversary of the Needle Exchange Programme (NEP) - and the 4th year of the free one-for-one exchange of needles, I again would support and expand a needle exchange programme that provides free needles for intravenous drug users.
The Progressive Party successfully bid in 2004 for $4 million over four years to fund free-to-users, one-for-one exchange of used needles because we wanted to minimise the harm caused by drugs”.
Back in 2002, I was appointed as the Associate Minister of Health and the minister responsible for drug policy. I received an independent review of the needle and syringe exchange programme. It reported that the programme saves lives. It said the programme saved - back then, seven years ago - $35 million in treatment costs since it had been established.
The report said plainly that the needle exchange programme reduces the harm caused by drug use. It told me the programme had helped to prevent twenty deaths from AIDS and more than two thousand cases of Hepatitis C and HIV/AIDS.
When you get a report like that in government, you sit up and take notice.
It makes a pleasant change from all the doom and gloom about things that don’t work. Here was clear evidence of a programme that worked.
There were people who sneered at that as liberal political correctness. I can tell you from personal experience there aren’t many votes in being wise or liberal about this stuff. But it was then, and is now, the right thing to do anyway.
The results have been very worthwhile. Obviously, I wish we didn’t need this programme. I wish we didn’t have drug use causing the harm it does, wrecking the lives of many people, and wrecking many communities.
But it does happen. It will keep happening. And if we care about vulnerable victims then our responsibility is to reduce the harm to them as much as we can. The needle exchange programme does just that and I endorse it for that reason.
Anderton brands Auckland bill as the “Removal of Democracy” bill
18.05.09
The Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill which will usher in Auckland’s “supercity” should be renamed the Removal of Democracy Bill.
The Local Government Act would have given Aucklanders a say in one of the most significant changes in local government in their region that they will see in their lifetime, but they are not going to have a chance to have that say.
In essence it is a great leap backwards to the days when 21 out of twenty two councillors lived east of Queen Street. It was the reason why a ward system had to be introduced so that all Aucklanders could actually be represented on their own Council. The conservative right-wingers have always resented that change and this proposal returns Auckland to the past they have always hankered after.
In real life terms it means, for example, the end of free swimming pools for the kids of South Auckland and any other future say for most Aucklanders in the way they want their local communities to deliver for them. Does anyone believe that those pools will continue to be free under the government’s proposal? I can already hear the self appointed Mayor of the super city, John Banks, making speeches about why the ratepayers of Auckland City shouldn’t be subsidising the swimming pools of south Auckland.
I support a strong regional government for Auckland. There used to be one – the Auckland Regional Authority (ARA) and I know about it because I was elected to it in 1977. We bought all the major regional parks and replaced the entire ancient bus fleet with new Mercedes Benz vehicles.
In 1989, the Labour government replaced the ARA with the Auckland Regional Council (ARC). In 1992, the then National government wanted to sell the Ports of Auckland and the water services, so they diverted ownership of these and other profitable assets into the newly established Auckland Regional Services Trust (ARST) with the plan to sell. What a shambles that would have been if it had been allowed to happen. It took all of the strength of the political group I led at the time to put a stop to that. Auckland has reaped the benefit ever since,” Jim Anderton said.
Now they’re having another go. This is a privatisers’ dream to sell the community assets of Auckland, and is entirely in line with Rodney Hide and the ACT party’s ideologies. Does anyone believe that this is in the best interests of Aucklanders?
You can understand in those circumstances why the National ACT government doesn’t want people to have a say as to whether or not they want this outrageous piece of community destruction to go ahead.
Tribute to Senior-Constable Len Snee
12.05.09
I join with other party leaders in expressing my deepest condolences to the family of Len Snee. I too wish a speedy and full recovery to the injured as they lie in their hospitals.
I send my best wishes to their families who must be desperately worried as they pray and wait at the bedsides of the fallen.
Maybe the most sombre thing we do in Parliament and government is send men and women into danger on our behalf. We send them out knowing that sometimes, on our darkest days, they won’t come back alive. When we send them out, we send them to defend New Zealanders. They are there for us.
They go out as our bravest, and when they fall, some of us all falls with them.
Every police officer knows that they go about their duty on every apparently normal day, with danger and unpredictability lurking. They take on that danger on our behalf. We can never repay sufficiently our debt to them, and we can not begin to repay the debt we owe to those who give their lives for us.
Most of us have learned a lot about Len Snee in the last few days. We learned about his professionalism as an officer. We learned about his popularity in his community. So I pay tribute to him personally and I hope his family, as they grieve, can find some small condolence in the respect and admiration his country is expressing.
I hope New Zealanders will show respect by declining to seek political mileage from this death while this wound is still so raw.
It is very easy to exploit the strong emotions we all feel over a tragedy like this. It is easy, but it’s wrong.
I want to congratulate the prime minister, and say I agree with his reaction when he said he was not going to be stampeded into a call for arming the police in their day to day operations. That was the right response. There will be lessons to be learned from this tragedy, and we will all have to reflect carefully on them. But the time for making political points isn’t here yet.
I am sure the family of the murdered officer are not yet ready to have him used for point-scoring about guns, nor for political mileage about drugs nor crime, nor about policing, nor mental health, nor any of the other issues that will inevitably give us pause.
This is a time to give thanks to the men and women whom we ask to protect us, to share the grief of Len Snee’s family and friends, and to express our strength as a community that comes together and makes our bonds stronger when we are confronted with tragedy.
Launch of the Finsec Banking petition
05.05.09
I would like to express my support for the Finsec petition, and for the retention of New Zealand jobs. Banks in New Zealand have been making enormous profits by mistreating customers and exploiting staff.
In the current global financial situation - the overseas owned banks in New Zealand are some of the most profitable in the world.
But they are still firing staff.
It’s time for them to give something back. It’ time for them to support New Zealand as good corporate citizens.
The taxpayer is giving the banks a crucial government guarantee. The government is right to do so. The banks need the guarantee to keep functioning. In a crisis, New Zealanders should be prepared to help each other out. And we should be prepared to use the power of government to make our economy stronger.
But there is a quid pro quo. It is perfectly reasonable to ask that in exchange for getting support from New Zealanders, the banks should, in return, support New Zealand in general and their own staff in particular.
MPs should not be able to fight by-elections
05.05.09
It’s a farce that sitting MPs are standing for election to parliament. I am drafting a members’ bill to stop MPs from standing for parliament in by-elections. In Mt Albert, there are three MPs standing for parliament. They are already MPs. If they want to represent the electorate, they already can. Any list MP can open an electorate office in Mt Albert and be a good representative.
What those MPs are really doing is using their parliamentary salaries and resources to bring in someone on a party list who has nothing to do with Mt Albert. For example, if the National candidate were to win she would be an MP just as she is now. But she would bring in a new MP who virtually no one has heard of, and who might never have visited Mt Albert in his or her life.
MPs who contest the seat but lose bring MMP into disrepute. Since there are three MPs contesting the seat, at least two of them have to lose and maybe all three will lose. If they are going to test their mandate, they should be prepared to live with the result.
In a general election, no MP has insurance. They have to get enough votes in their electorate or for their party, or they are out. It’s a democratic farce to have different rules in a by-election.
A simple bill that stopped a sitting MP standing in a by-election would force MPs to make a meaningful choice - if they really want to contest a seat, they should resign from parliament and contest it on the same basis as anyone else.
MPs shouldn’t fight a parliamentary by-election while they’re drawing a full parliamentary salary.
28.05.09
Nearly as much is being cut out of science and research in the primary sector as the government is investing in infrastructure.
The total value of primary sector science investment falls from $2 billion provided for in NZ Fast Forward under the last government to as little as $1.2 billion now.
Like for like government spending over ten years falls from around a billion dollars in the NZ Fast Forward Fund, to $610 million in the government’s replacement. “With matching private sector funding, the total investment in primary sector research and development falls by $800 million, or about 0.4 per cent of GDP.
In addition, the government has not replaced a cent of the cancelled research and development tax credit. Overall, the government is cutting innovation spending by more than the value of the personal tax cuts.
This is huge cut in science and research. It is a disaster for the future of New Zealand’s economy.
Other developed countries are preparing themselves to come out of recession stronger. New Zealand is preparing by switching from science and research to poltergeists and UFOs.
The government promised the primary sector it would spend more on science and research. It has broken that promise as surely as if it has broken its promise on personal taxes.
Winter rebate from electricity companies would be appreciated
22.05.09
The knowledge that many elderly New Zealanders huddle under blankets rather than turn on unaffordable heating should be a wake-up call to the power companies to return a winter rebate to their consumers this winter.
For many New Zealanders, this wintry weather brings on a bitter struggle with the cold and the dilemma of whether they can turn on a heater or not. Low income households, the elderly and students fear their electricity bills and well they might. I remember when the electricity bills came every two months – now the monthly bill is the same – or more – than the bi-monthly one was.
The Commerce Commission’s investigation into the wholesale and retail electricity markets showed that the electricity companies have not breached Part 2 of the Commerce Act but their extra $4.3 billion in earnings from 2001 to mid-2007 reveals they are charging with a take no prisoners mentality. The electricity companies’ profits are at the expense of New Zealand’s most economically vulnerable.
Since 2002, I have pushed for a return to consumers of some of the big profit increases from the state-owned power companies to help them with winter power bills. Low income households could be given $200 toward winter heating costs and power companies would still contribute as much to the government as they did last year. $200 would mean some households had a month of relief from winter heating costs. For superannuitants, beneficiaries and people who have lost their jobs in the downturn, it would make a huge difference.
The Commerce Commission’s ruling on the power companies should not be seen as a sign off for a return to business as usual. I am sure that New Zealanders would be hugely relieved to see the companies acting in the interests’ of their consumers with a winter rebate during this winter.
Comment on economics and the recession Response to Daniel Silva’s article in the Country-wide magazine
21.05.09
So Daniel Silva thinks that the current international recession isn’t going to affect New Zealand much. Well that’s all right then? Actually – no.
He’s quite wrong to think so for two significant reasons quite aside from the fact that any nation which earns its living as an international commodities trader is going to be affected by what happens to purchasing power in our major markets.See website for full response
Aucklanders should have elected, not appointed leaders
19.05.09
Letting Auckland vote would be a better way to make appointees to the Auckland super city transitional agency than a secret process in a government where decision-making is melting down.
Why is the government even appointing a board? The way we find people to run local government in New Zealand is we have democratic elections.
A government that listened to New Zealanders would not have a problem making a choice of leadership. The people do the appointing for it. In a democratic election, you are much more likely to get leadership that looks like Auckland. National seems interested only in leadership that looks like the National or ACT Party.
I am very concerned that the quality of decision-making in the government is falling apart as the pressure of actually governing comes on. The National government is making poor decisions or refusing to make them at all. It created a sense of urgency for itself over Auckland’s super city, and now it can’t even meet its own urgent timetable.
Needle Exchange Programme proven it worth
19.05.09
On the 21st Anniversary of the Needle Exchange Programme (NEP) - and the 4th year of the free one-for-one exchange of needles, I again would support and expand a needle exchange programme that provides free needles for intravenous drug users.
The Progressive Party successfully bid in 2004 for $4 million over four years to fund free-to-users, one-for-one exchange of used needles because we wanted to minimise the harm caused by drugs”.
Back in 2002, I was appointed as the Associate Minister of Health and the minister responsible for drug policy. I received an independent review of the needle and syringe exchange programme. It reported that the programme saves lives. It said the programme saved - back then, seven years ago - $35 million in treatment costs since it had been established.
The report said plainly that the needle exchange programme reduces the harm caused by drug use. It told me the programme had helped to prevent twenty deaths from AIDS and more than two thousand cases of Hepatitis C and HIV/AIDS.
When you get a report like that in government, you sit up and take notice.
It makes a pleasant change from all the doom and gloom about things that don’t work. Here was clear evidence of a programme that worked.
There were people who sneered at that as liberal political correctness. I can tell you from personal experience there aren’t many votes in being wise or liberal about this stuff. But it was then, and is now, the right thing to do anyway.
The results have been very worthwhile. Obviously, I wish we didn’t need this programme. I wish we didn’t have drug use causing the harm it does, wrecking the lives of many people, and wrecking many communities.
But it does happen. It will keep happening. And if we care about vulnerable victims then our responsibility is to reduce the harm to them as much as we can. The needle exchange programme does just that and I endorse it for that reason.
Anderton brands Auckland bill as the “Removal of Democracy” bill
18.05.09
The Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill which will usher in Auckland’s “supercity” should be renamed the Removal of Democracy Bill.
The Local Government Act would have given Aucklanders a say in one of the most significant changes in local government in their region that they will see in their lifetime, but they are not going to have a chance to have that say.
In essence it is a great leap backwards to the days when 21 out of twenty two councillors lived east of Queen Street. It was the reason why a ward system had to be introduced so that all Aucklanders could actually be represented on their own Council. The conservative right-wingers have always resented that change and this proposal returns Auckland to the past they have always hankered after.
In real life terms it means, for example, the end of free swimming pools for the kids of South Auckland and any other future say for most Aucklanders in the way they want their local communities to deliver for them. Does anyone believe that those pools will continue to be free under the government’s proposal? I can already hear the self appointed Mayor of the super city, John Banks, making speeches about why the ratepayers of Auckland City shouldn’t be subsidising the swimming pools of south Auckland.
I support a strong regional government for Auckland. There used to be one – the Auckland Regional Authority (ARA) and I know about it because I was elected to it in 1977. We bought all the major regional parks and replaced the entire ancient bus fleet with new Mercedes Benz vehicles.
In 1989, the Labour government replaced the ARA with the Auckland Regional Council (ARC). In 1992, the then National government wanted to sell the Ports of Auckland and the water services, so they diverted ownership of these and other profitable assets into the newly established Auckland Regional Services Trust (ARST) with the plan to sell. What a shambles that would have been if it had been allowed to happen. It took all of the strength of the political group I led at the time to put a stop to that. Auckland has reaped the benefit ever since,” Jim Anderton said.
Now they’re having another go. This is a privatisers’ dream to sell the community assets of Auckland, and is entirely in line with Rodney Hide and the ACT party’s ideologies. Does anyone believe that this is in the best interests of Aucklanders?
You can understand in those circumstances why the National ACT government doesn’t want people to have a say as to whether or not they want this outrageous piece of community destruction to go ahead.
Tribute to Senior-Constable Len Snee
12.05.09
I join with other party leaders in expressing my deepest condolences to the family of Len Snee. I too wish a speedy and full recovery to the injured as they lie in their hospitals.
I send my best wishes to their families who must be desperately worried as they pray and wait at the bedsides of the fallen.
Maybe the most sombre thing we do in Parliament and government is send men and women into danger on our behalf. We send them out knowing that sometimes, on our darkest days, they won’t come back alive. When we send them out, we send them to defend New Zealanders. They are there for us.
They go out as our bravest, and when they fall, some of us all falls with them.
Every police officer knows that they go about their duty on every apparently normal day, with danger and unpredictability lurking. They take on that danger on our behalf. We can never repay sufficiently our debt to them, and we can not begin to repay the debt we owe to those who give their lives for us.
Most of us have learned a lot about Len Snee in the last few days. We learned about his professionalism as an officer. We learned about his popularity in his community. So I pay tribute to him personally and I hope his family, as they grieve, can find some small condolence in the respect and admiration his country is expressing.
I hope New Zealanders will show respect by declining to seek political mileage from this death while this wound is still so raw.
It is very easy to exploit the strong emotions we all feel over a tragedy like this. It is easy, but it’s wrong.
I want to congratulate the prime minister, and say I agree with his reaction when he said he was not going to be stampeded into a call for arming the police in their day to day operations. That was the right response. There will be lessons to be learned from this tragedy, and we will all have to reflect carefully on them. But the time for making political points isn’t here yet.
I am sure the family of the murdered officer are not yet ready to have him used for point-scoring about guns, nor for political mileage about drugs nor crime, nor about policing, nor mental health, nor any of the other issues that will inevitably give us pause.
This is a time to give thanks to the men and women whom we ask to protect us, to share the grief of Len Snee’s family and friends, and to express our strength as a community that comes together and makes our bonds stronger when we are confronted with tragedy.
Launch of the Finsec Banking petition
05.05.09
I would like to express my support for the Finsec petition, and for the retention of New Zealand jobs. Banks in New Zealand have been making enormous profits by mistreating customers and exploiting staff.
In the current global financial situation - the overseas owned banks in New Zealand are some of the most profitable in the world.
But they are still firing staff.
It’s time for them to give something back. It’ time for them to support New Zealand as good corporate citizens.
The taxpayer is giving the banks a crucial government guarantee. The government is right to do so. The banks need the guarantee to keep functioning. In a crisis, New Zealanders should be prepared to help each other out. And we should be prepared to use the power of government to make our economy stronger.
But there is a quid pro quo. It is perfectly reasonable to ask that in exchange for getting support from New Zealanders, the banks should, in return, support New Zealand in general and their own staff in particular.
MPs should not be able to fight by-elections
05.05.09
It’s a farce that sitting MPs are standing for election to parliament. I am drafting a members’ bill to stop MPs from standing for parliament in by-elections. In Mt Albert, there are three MPs standing for parliament. They are already MPs. If they want to represent the electorate, they already can. Any list MP can open an electorate office in Mt Albert and be a good representative.
What those MPs are really doing is using their parliamentary salaries and resources to bring in someone on a party list who has nothing to do with Mt Albert. For example, if the National candidate were to win she would be an MP just as she is now. But she would bring in a new MP who virtually no one has heard of, and who might never have visited Mt Albert in his or her life.
MPs who contest the seat but lose bring MMP into disrepute. Since there are three MPs contesting the seat, at least two of them have to lose and maybe all three will lose. If they are going to test their mandate, they should be prepared to live with the result.
In a general election, no MP has insurance. They have to get enough votes in their electorate or for their party, or they are out. It’s a democratic farce to have different rules in a by-election.
A simple bill that stopped a sitting MP standing in a by-election would force MPs to make a meaningful choice - if they really want to contest a seat, they should resign from parliament and contest it on the same basis as anyone else.
MPs shouldn’t fight a parliamentary by-election while they’re drawing a full parliamentary salary.
How to reduce prison populations
17/07/09 11:51 Filed in: News Releases
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.”
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.”