Good government
Erebus pilots deserve justice after 30 years
27/11/09 15:38 Filed in: News Releases
After thirty years, Air New Zealand needs to apologise to the families of the pilots of flight TE 901 who were wrongly blamed for the Mt Erebus crash which claimed the lives of 257 passengers and crew.
This Saturday (28 November) will mark the thirtieth anniversary since the crash.
A Royal Commission of Enquiry in 1980, led by Justice Mahon found that “organisational failure” was to blame for the crash. Justice Mahon also said that in his opinion, Air New Zealand had deliberately set out to put the blame on ‘pilot error’.
At the time, Air New Zealand undermined what became known as the ‘Mahon Report’ and its findings have only recently been formally acknowledged.
Thirty years later, the families of the pilots have never received an apology from Air New Zealand, who not only failed to stand by their own pilots, but actively sought to pass the blame onto the pilots, despite evidence which clearly showed they were not to blame.
Here is what the Mahon Report says: “In my opinion..the single dominant and effective cause of the disaster was the mistake made by those airline officials who programmed the aircraft to fly directly at Mt Erebus and omitted to tell the aircrew. That mistake is directly attributable, not so much to the persons who made it, but to the incompetent administrative airline procedures which made the mistake possible. In my opinion, neither Captain Collins nor First Officer Cassin nor the flight engineers made any error which contributed to the disaster, and were not responsible for its occurrence.”
“It is my hope, and the hope of many New Zealanders, that this injustice will be set right on Saturday, and the families of the pilots of flight TE901 will hear an apology from Air New Zealand,” Jim Anderton said.
This Saturday (28 November) will mark the thirtieth anniversary since the crash.
A Royal Commission of Enquiry in 1980, led by Justice Mahon found that “organisational failure” was to blame for the crash. Justice Mahon also said that in his opinion, Air New Zealand had deliberately set out to put the blame on ‘pilot error’.
At the time, Air New Zealand undermined what became known as the ‘Mahon Report’ and its findings have only recently been formally acknowledged.
Thirty years later, the families of the pilots have never received an apology from Air New Zealand, who not only failed to stand by their own pilots, but actively sought to pass the blame onto the pilots, despite evidence which clearly showed they were not to blame.
Here is what the Mahon Report says: “In my opinion..the single dominant and effective cause of the disaster was the mistake made by those airline officials who programmed the aircraft to fly directly at Mt Erebus and omitted to tell the aircrew. That mistake is directly attributable, not so much to the persons who made it, but to the incompetent administrative airline procedures which made the mistake possible. In my opinion, neither Captain Collins nor First Officer Cassin nor the flight engineers made any error which contributed to the disaster, and were not responsible for its occurrence.”
“It is my hope, and the hope of many New Zealanders, that this injustice will be set right on Saturday, and the families of the pilots of flight TE901 will hear an apology from Air New Zealand,” Jim Anderton said.
0 Comments
Bill to stop MPs standing for Parliament
11/09/09 12:00 Filed in: News Releases
New Bill designed to stop MPs standing for election when they are already elected
Jim Anderton has drafted a Bill designed to stop current members of parliament from standing for election to parliament in a by-election.
The Bill will be placed in the Member’s Ballot. The next ballot for Member’s Bills is expected to be drawn next Thursday.
“It’s a nonsense that people can stand for election to parliament when they’ve already members of parliament,” says Member of Parliament for Wigram and Progressive leader, Jim Anderton
“What would rate-payers think if a member of a city council stood in a by-election to become a city councillor?”
In this year’s Mt Albert by-election, three out of the four main candidates were already members of parliament. Only the Labour Party candidate, David Shearer was not already an MP. Mr Shearer went on to win the by-election.
“There should be a rule that if you want to stand in a by-election, you first resign your seat in parliament.
“It’s not acceptable that M.Ps like Russell Norman for the Green Party, Melissa Lee for National, and John Boscawan for the Act Party used tax-payers’ money to run a campaign to get elected to parliament when they had already been elected. In reality they were using their parliamentary salaries and resources to try and win the by-election and bring another MP into parliament on their party list.
“If the Bill is introduced, existing M.P.s will have to make a meaningful choice - if they really want to run for a seat, they will need to resign from parliament and contest it on the same basis as anyone else. If a list member is so keen to represent the people of a particular electorate, his/her party can open an office there.
“In a general election, an electorate MP has no insurance. They have to win enough votes in their electorate or for their party to return to Parliament. It is inconsistent at the very least, to have different rules in a by-election,” says Jim Anderton.
Jim Anderton has drafted a Bill designed to stop current members of parliament from standing for election to parliament in a by-election.
The Bill will be placed in the Member’s Ballot. The next ballot for Member’s Bills is expected to be drawn next Thursday.
“It’s a nonsense that people can stand for election to parliament when they’ve already members of parliament,” says Member of Parliament for Wigram and Progressive leader, Jim Anderton
“What would rate-payers think if a member of a city council stood in a by-election to become a city councillor?”
In this year’s Mt Albert by-election, three out of the four main candidates were already members of parliament. Only the Labour Party candidate, David Shearer was not already an MP. Mr Shearer went on to win the by-election.
“There should be a rule that if you want to stand in a by-election, you first resign your seat in parliament.
“It’s not acceptable that M.Ps like Russell Norman for the Green Party, Melissa Lee for National, and John Boscawan for the Act Party used tax-payers’ money to run a campaign to get elected to parliament when they had already been elected. In reality they were using their parliamentary salaries and resources to try and win the by-election and bring another MP into parliament on their party list.
“If the Bill is introduced, existing M.P.s will have to make a meaningful choice - if they really want to run for a seat, they will need to resign from parliament and contest it on the same basis as anyone else. If a list member is so keen to represent the people of a particular electorate, his/her party can open an office there.
“In a general election, an electorate MP has no insurance. They have to win enough votes in their electorate or for their party to return to Parliament. It is inconsistent at the very least, to have different rules in a by-election,” says Jim Anderton.
Act irresponsible in walking out too quickly
20/08/09 12:38 Filed in: News Releases
Making threats to get your way in government as Act leader Rodney Hide is doing is the wrong way to go about getting cooperation in government, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.
He has led two smaller coalition partners in government. He says Rodney Hide is threatening to flounce out of government if he doesn’t get his way.
“It’s counter-productive as a means to get the policy you want, and it is a bad way to govern. When two parties cannot handle their differences without one walking out, it says either there is bad faith at the heart of government, or one party is not up to the challenges of government.
“It is inevitable when there is more than one party in government that there will be some issues on which the parties feel passionate and have different views. If one party stomped out every time it couldn’t get what it wanted, then cooperation and coalition could never happen.
“Mr Hide thinks Act will win some support over the Maori seats issue, but it will lose more credibility than it gains. The public will see Mr Hide as irresponsible - and that is a larger problem for Mr Hide than the policy at stake.
“Larger parties will never be seen to be allowing the tail to wag the dog. All Act can do by walking out is make itself irrelevant. For small parties, there are a lot of bitter pills to swallow. If your ideas are popular, the larger party will adopt them as their own anyway, but at least you get your policy adopted.
“The way to get what you want is by constructive argument and dealing with the objections of your partner, not by making threats. If they couldn’t agree and believe the issue is so important, Act should have reached an agreement that another minister would take over the relevant bill, allowing Act to vote against it.
“Making every important issue a make or break one means that eventually the relationship will break or at least be less effective.
“I would be pleased to see someone else than Mr Hide as Minister for Local Government, however. He clearly doesn’t like local bodies or the constructive role they play in the development of their communities and that is hardly a good qualification for being their minister.”
He has led two smaller coalition partners in government. He says Rodney Hide is threatening to flounce out of government if he doesn’t get his way.
“It’s counter-productive as a means to get the policy you want, and it is a bad way to govern. When two parties cannot handle their differences without one walking out, it says either there is bad faith at the heart of government, or one party is not up to the challenges of government.
“It is inevitable when there is more than one party in government that there will be some issues on which the parties feel passionate and have different views. If one party stomped out every time it couldn’t get what it wanted, then cooperation and coalition could never happen.
“Mr Hide thinks Act will win some support over the Maori seats issue, but it will lose more credibility than it gains. The public will see Mr Hide as irresponsible - and that is a larger problem for Mr Hide than the policy at stake.
“Larger parties will never be seen to be allowing the tail to wag the dog. All Act can do by walking out is make itself irrelevant. For small parties, there are a lot of bitter pills to swallow. If your ideas are popular, the larger party will adopt them as their own anyway, but at least you get your policy adopted.
“The way to get what you want is by constructive argument and dealing with the objections of your partner, not by making threats. If they couldn’t agree and believe the issue is so important, Act should have reached an agreement that another minister would take over the relevant bill, allowing Act to vote against it.
“Making every important issue a make or break one means that eventually the relationship will break or at least be less effective.
“I would be pleased to see someone else than Mr Hide as Minister for Local Government, however. He clearly doesn’t like local bodies or the constructive role they play in the development of their communities and that is hardly a good qualification for being their minister.”
It was all about privatising jails
09/03/09 13:19 Filed in: News Releases
The big mouth behaviour of the Corrections Minister has been exposed by the State Services Commissioner’s report on Barry Matthews, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.
“The report confirms mainly that Judith Collins is not equipped for a tough job.
“And it exposes the campaign to vilify a government department was really a cynical campaign to privatise prison management.
“Ms Collins swaggered around leaving no one under any doubt that she would force the Corrections department CEO to step down. For example, the Herald - citing Ms Collins’ ‘ruthless combination of raw power and tactical guile’ - declared:
She has made Matthews’ position utterly untenable. And she left the State Services Commission - as Matthews’ employer - no option but to remove him, assuming he does not resign beforehand.
Jim Anderton says the pressure on Mr Matthews to go was always an overreaction to the Auditor’s report.
“Among the specific, highlighted examples the Auditor cited were failures to fill out reports and inconsistency in classification of the illness of paroled offenders. These procedural issues needed to be fixed, but it was unjustified and disproportionate to say they amounted to a case for immediate dismissal. That was always going to be a wrong judgement - exactly what the State Services inquiry has found.
“Ms Collins should have known that there was no case to support the dismissal of the CEO of her department. Either she didn’t know and isn’t up to the job, or she did know and was cynical in the way she used the issue.”
“The report confirms mainly that Judith Collins is not equipped for a tough job.
“And it exposes the campaign to vilify a government department was really a cynical campaign to privatise prison management.
“Ms Collins swaggered around leaving no one under any doubt that she would force the Corrections department CEO to step down. For example, the Herald - citing Ms Collins’ ‘ruthless combination of raw power and tactical guile’ - declared:
She has made Matthews’ position utterly untenable. And she left the State Services Commission - as Matthews’ employer - no option but to remove him, assuming he does not resign beforehand.
Jim Anderton says the pressure on Mr Matthews to go was always an overreaction to the Auditor’s report.
“Among the specific, highlighted examples the Auditor cited were failures to fill out reports and inconsistency in classification of the illness of paroled offenders. These procedural issues needed to be fixed, but it was unjustified and disproportionate to say they amounted to a case for immediate dismissal. That was always going to be a wrong judgement - exactly what the State Services inquiry has found.
“Ms Collins should have known that there was no case to support the dismissal of the CEO of her department. Either she didn’t know and isn’t up to the job, or she did know and was cynical in the way she used the issue.”
National vote-buying with taxpayers’ money
12/03/09 13:09 Filed in: News Releases
Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton is appalled at National’s use of taxpayer money to change electorate office funding so that government MPs get an increase four times greater than Opposition MPs.
“They have noticed that government MPs have bigger electorates by land area than Opposition MPs, because the Opposition tends to hold inner city seats. So they have put a fix in and handed out more money to big electorates. This is a gerrymander.
Not only that but the rules they are putting in place are different for Maori seats. Maori seats qualify for extra funding if they are over 10,000 square kilometres. General seats qualify if they are over 20,000. I can think of no reason why a differentiation should be made.
“National is so brazen it has even left out the biggest electorate in the country – Rongotai.
“The busiest electorate offices in the country are inner city electorates. Imagine the outcry from National if Labour had given busier offices more.
“Most National MPs don’t need extra support staff; they just need to work harder.
“This is the same National Party that claimed to be the very soul of injured innocence when the Electoral Finance Act was changed - yet, whatever your opinion of the EFA, at least everyone was treated the same.
“The National Party has spent all this week reverting to form - backward-looking, mean and getting its priorities all wrong.
“Now National is taking money from higher priority uses to buy the votes of its own supporters. This is exactly the same National party that used to gave Alamein Kopu a nice Beehive office to secure its majority. Turns out that John Key is made of the same stuff.”
“They have noticed that government MPs have bigger electorates by land area than Opposition MPs, because the Opposition tends to hold inner city seats. So they have put a fix in and handed out more money to big electorates. This is a gerrymander.
Not only that but the rules they are putting in place are different for Maori seats. Maori seats qualify for extra funding if they are over 10,000 square kilometres. General seats qualify if they are over 20,000. I can think of no reason why a differentiation should be made.
“National is so brazen it has even left out the biggest electorate in the country – Rongotai.
“The busiest electorate offices in the country are inner city electorates. Imagine the outcry from National if Labour had given busier offices more.
“Most National MPs don’t need extra support staff; they just need to work harder.
“This is the same National Party that claimed to be the very soul of injured innocence when the Electoral Finance Act was changed - yet, whatever your opinion of the EFA, at least everyone was treated the same.
“The National Party has spent all this week reverting to form - backward-looking, mean and getting its priorities all wrong.
“Now National is taking money from higher priority uses to buy the votes of its own supporters. This is exactly the same National party that used to gave Alamein Kopu a nice Beehive office to secure its majority. Turns out that John Key is made of the same stuff.”
MPs should not be able to fight by-elections
05/05/09 12:55 Filed in: News Releases
It’s a farce that sitting MPs are standing for election to parliament, Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.
He is drafting a members’ bill to stop MPs from standing for parliament in by-elections.
“In Mt Albert, there are three MPs standing for parliament. They are already MPs. If they want to represent the electorate, they already can. Any list MP can open an electorate office in Mt Albert and be a good representative.
“What those MPs are really doing in using their parliamentary salaries and resources to bring in someone on a party list who has nothing to do with Mt Albert. For example, if the National candidate were to win she would be an MP just as she is now. But she would bring in a new MP who virtually no one has heard of, and who might never have visited Mt Albert in his or her life.
“MPs who contest the seat but lose bring MMP into disrepute. Since there are three MPs contesting the seat, at least two of them have to lose and maybe all three will lose. If they are going to test their mandate, they should be prepared to live with the result.
“In a general election, no MP has insurance. They have to get enough votes in their electorate or for their party, or they are out. It’s a democratic farce to have different rules in a by-election.
“A simple bill that stopped a sitting MP standing in a by-election would force MPs to make a meaningful choice - if they really want to contest a seat, they should resign from parliament and contest it on the same basis as anyone else.
“MPs shouldn’t fight a parliamentary by-election while they’re drawing a full parliamentary salary,” Jim Anderton said.
He is drafting a members’ bill to stop MPs from standing for parliament in by-elections.
“In Mt Albert, there are three MPs standing for parliament. They are already MPs. If they want to represent the electorate, they already can. Any list MP can open an electorate office in Mt Albert and be a good representative.
“What those MPs are really doing in using their parliamentary salaries and resources to bring in someone on a party list who has nothing to do with Mt Albert. For example, if the National candidate were to win she would be an MP just as she is now. But she would bring in a new MP who virtually no one has heard of, and who might never have visited Mt Albert in his or her life.
“MPs who contest the seat but lose bring MMP into disrepute. Since there are three MPs contesting the seat, at least two of them have to lose and maybe all three will lose. If they are going to test their mandate, they should be prepared to live with the result.
“In a general election, no MP has insurance. They have to get enough votes in their electorate or for their party, or they are out. It’s a democratic farce to have different rules in a by-election.
“A simple bill that stopped a sitting MP standing in a by-election would force MPs to make a meaningful choice - if they really want to contest a seat, they should resign from parliament and contest it on the same basis as anyone else.
“MPs shouldn’t fight a parliamentary by-election while they’re drawing a full parliamentary salary,” Jim Anderton said.
Anderton brands Auckland reorganisation as the “Removal of Democracy” bill
18/05/09 12:48 Filed in: News Releases
The Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill should be renamed the Removal of Democracy Bill, said Progressive leader Jim Anderton in parliament today. He was speaking on the proposal to create an Auckland ‘super city’.
“The Local Government Act would have given Aucklanders a say in one of the most significant changes in local government in their region they will see in their lifetime, but they are not going to have a chance to have that say”, Jim Anderton said.
“In essence it is a great leap backwards to the days when 21 out of twenty two councillors lived east of Queen Street. It was the reason why a ward system had to be introduced so that all Aucklanders could actually be represented on their own Council. The conservative rightwingers have always resented that change and this proposal returns Auckland to the past they have always hankered after.
“In real life terms it means, for example, the end of free swimming pools for the kids of South Auckland and any other future say for most Aucklanders in the way they want their local communities to deliver for them. Does anyone believe that those pools will continue to be free under the government’s proposal? I can already hear the self appointed Mayor of the super city, John Banks, making speeches about why the ratepayers of Auckland City shouldn’t be subsidising the swimming pools of south Auckland”, Jim Anderton said.
“I support a strong regional government for Auckland. There used to be one – the Auckland Regional Authority (ARA) and I know about it because I was elected to it in 1977. We bought all the major regional parks and replaced the entire ancient bus fleet with new Mercedes Benz.
“In 1989, the Labour government replaced the ARA with the Auckland Regional Council (ARC). In 1992, the then National government wanted to sell the Ports of Auckland and the water services, so they diverted ownership of these and other profitable assets into the newly established Auckland Regional Services Trust (ARST) with the plan to sell. What a shambles that would have been if it had been allowed to happen. It took all of the strength of the political group I led at the time to put a stop to that. Auckland has reaped the benefit ever since,” Jim Anderton said.
“Now they’re having another go. This is a privatisers’ dream to sell the community assets of Auckland, and is entirely in line with Rodney Hide and the ACT party’s ideologies. Does anyone believe that this is in the best interests of Aucklanders?
“You can understand in those circumstances why the National ACT government doesn’t want people to have a say as to whether or not they want this outrageous piece of community destruction to go ahead,” Jim Anderton said in the House today.
“The Local Government Act would have given Aucklanders a say in one of the most significant changes in local government in their region they will see in their lifetime, but they are not going to have a chance to have that say”, Jim Anderton said.
“In essence it is a great leap backwards to the days when 21 out of twenty two councillors lived east of Queen Street. It was the reason why a ward system had to be introduced so that all Aucklanders could actually be represented on their own Council. The conservative rightwingers have always resented that change and this proposal returns Auckland to the past they have always hankered after.
“In real life terms it means, for example, the end of free swimming pools for the kids of South Auckland and any other future say for most Aucklanders in the way they want their local communities to deliver for them. Does anyone believe that those pools will continue to be free under the government’s proposal? I can already hear the self appointed Mayor of the super city, John Banks, making speeches about why the ratepayers of Auckland City shouldn’t be subsidising the swimming pools of south Auckland”, Jim Anderton said.
“I support a strong regional government for Auckland. There used to be one – the Auckland Regional Authority (ARA) and I know about it because I was elected to it in 1977. We bought all the major regional parks and replaced the entire ancient bus fleet with new Mercedes Benz.
“In 1989, the Labour government replaced the ARA with the Auckland Regional Council (ARC). In 1992, the then National government wanted to sell the Ports of Auckland and the water services, so they diverted ownership of these and other profitable assets into the newly established Auckland Regional Services Trust (ARST) with the plan to sell. What a shambles that would have been if it had been allowed to happen. It took all of the strength of the political group I led at the time to put a stop to that. Auckland has reaped the benefit ever since,” Jim Anderton said.
“Now they’re having another go. This is a privatisers’ dream to sell the community assets of Auckland, and is entirely in line with Rodney Hide and the ACT party’s ideologies. Does anyone believe that this is in the best interests of Aucklanders?
“You can understand in those circumstances why the National ACT government doesn’t want people to have a say as to whether or not they want this outrageous piece of community destruction to go ahead,” Jim Anderton said in the House today.
Aucklanders should have an elected, not appointed leaders
19/05/09 12:36 Filed in: News Releases
Letting Auckland vote would be a better way to make appointees to the Auckland super city transitional agency than a secret process in a government where decision-making is melting down, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.
“Why is the government even appointing a board? The way we find people to run local government in New Zealand is we have democratic elections.
“A government that listened to New Zealanders would not have a problem making a choice of leadership. The people do the appointing for it.
“In a democratic election, you are much more likely to get leadership that looks like Auckland. National seems interested only in leadership that looks like the National or ACT Party.
“I am very concerned that the quality of decision-making in the government is falling apart as the pressure of actually governing comes on.
“The National government is making poor decisions or refusing to make them at all.
“It created a sense of urgency for itself over Auckland’s super city, and now it can’t even meet its own urgent timetable,” Jim Anderton said.
“Why is the government even appointing a board? The way we find people to run local government in New Zealand is we have democratic elections.
“A government that listened to New Zealanders would not have a problem making a choice of leadership. The people do the appointing for it.
“In a democratic election, you are much more likely to get leadership that looks like Auckland. National seems interested only in leadership that looks like the National or ACT Party.
“I am very concerned that the quality of decision-making in the government is falling apart as the pressure of actually governing comes on.
“The National government is making poor decisions or refusing to make them at all.
“It created a sense of urgency for itself over Auckland’s super city, and now it can’t even meet its own urgent timetable,” Jim Anderton said.
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.
Complaints over secret agreements
13/07/09 11:57 Filed in: News Releases
An attempt to hold negotiations over Auckland’s water services in secret might be a breach of the law, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.
He is going to the Ombudsman and Auditor-General with complaints over a ‘confidentiality agreement’ Watercare has tried to make Auckland councils sign. The agreement would stop councils from disclosing any details about the transfer of water businesses to Watercare.
Jim Anderton says the agreement appears to be an attempt to thwart the law around official information - in particular the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. It provides the only grounds councils can use to restrict disclosure of information. It also provides for redress through the Ombudsman.
“The ‘confidentiality agreement’ has the whiff of darkness about it.
“There should be nothing in the transfer of the water business of councils that can’t be dealt with through the official information statutes. The important protection for the public is that officials can’t use our money without being accountable to the public. If there are public interest grounds for withholding information, then those grounds are subject to simple review by the Ombudsman.
“Therefore the attempt to override the statute with a secrecy deal appears to be sinister.
“You can’t use public money for unlawful purposes. Thwarting an Act of parliament is unlawful. Any public money used to write this agreement or negotiate it will have to be paid back. Any lawyers involved should be thinking about refunding their fees.
“What we are seeing repeatedly from the national government and its henchmen in Auckland is a highly undemocratic tendency towards taxation without representation.
“First, the public’s right to vote on Auckland was blocked by Act of parliament, passed under urgency. Now the public’s right to know what is happening to our assets is being blocked.”