Drug and alcohol abuse
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
0 Comments
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.”